The Mugen Fighters Guild

Off-Topic => All That's Left => Topic started by: Iced on July 20, 2012, 11:11:07 am

Title: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 20, 2012, 11:11:07 am
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12850048-at-least-20-hurt-after-shooting-during-dark-knight-screening-in-aurora-colorado

Well now.
Some people want to see the world burn?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 20, 2012, 11:12:15 am
That's called real life Cinema in 4D. :D
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: nick. on July 20, 2012, 11:14:21 am
And this is why I hate my town. What angers me the most is the fact children had to be hurt. Children at a fucking superhero movie.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 20, 2012, 11:15:54 am
At least the guys didnt wear joker masks.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: nick. on July 20, 2012, 11:38:31 am
Some witnesses say the bullets pierced through the walls and hit people in the other rooms. =/

Also looks like they suspect explosives around the area. Well fuck.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 20, 2012, 11:40:57 am
14 people dead.

Seriously what the fuck.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: D'Evil on July 20, 2012, 11:41:42 am
This is quite horrible to hear.  What the fuck.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: nick. on July 20, 2012, 11:44:26 am
Sadly the area is a piece of shit so it's incredibly easy for this to happen as security is poor, however the theater is really popular among Aurora. Also explosives were found in the suspect's home... seems like the guy was planning something big...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Sookoll on July 20, 2012, 12:19:29 pm
Marvel fans are insane.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 20, 2012, 12:21:26 pm
The worst part is someone somewhere probably knew something that could have prevented this and just didnt bother.

 :'(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: GOH on July 20, 2012, 12:33:28 pm
Stop talking about God.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 20, 2012, 01:27:21 pm
I blame your stupid constitution and it's right to bear arms. This is terrible.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: nick. on July 20, 2012, 01:45:00 pm
Hurr guns make 'Merica safe

Not sure how this'll affect us but I feel we'll be getting some more security around the areas. Especially considering what they found.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 20, 2012, 01:48:25 pm
Sadly the area is a piece of shit so it's incredibly easy for this to happen as security is poor
It's not a matter of security, it's a matter of stupid and dangerous people being allowed to have guns. There are plenty of places all around the world with no "security" around them, and nobody goes bombing these places all day long.

What Cyanide said.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 20, 2012, 01:55:20 pm
+1 @Cyanide

Security is not the solution, logical laws are.

Why is it allowed that so many civilians have guns in many american states?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 20, 2012, 01:59:07 pm
For security. :haw:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 20, 2012, 02:24:54 pm
I blame your stupid constitution and it's right to bear arms. This is terrible.

Sorry peaches, not taking the bait on this one.  Insane people determined to do bad things will find a way no matter what is outlawed. 

 >:(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: K.O.D on July 20, 2012, 02:28:40 pm
yeah im sure he could full auto throw knives at people in a theater too
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 20, 2012, 02:30:22 pm
I blame your stupid constitution and it's right to bear arms. This is terrible.

Sorry peaches, not taking the bait on this one.  Insane people determined to do bad things will find a way no matter what is outlawed. 

 >:(



having the illusion of control by selling firearms legally, and thus making it easier for said insane people to get one, doesn't help :(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 20, 2012, 02:32:51 pm
Having a constitution allowing them to purchase what they need to do such bad things without any difficulty only incites them to do so.

Guns are authorized, so people buy them and use them. Sure, in countries/states where they're forbidden, if people really want to buy some, they'll find a way, but it's much harder.
If biological or nuclear weapons could be bought at your local retailer, surely "bad guys" would buy them too. Fortunately it's not the case. That's why they don't use these kind of weapons : because they're hard to find.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 20, 2012, 02:36:27 pm
can you imagine entering a store and be like "hello...i was wondering if you still had any anthrax left?"
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 20, 2012, 02:38:20 pm
No but we still have some sulfur mustard high school edition, ideal to recreate Columbine, but adding more fun and originality in the process.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 20, 2012, 02:39:47 pm


Yeah Breivik took advantage of the US constitution, right?

 >:(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Sookoll on July 20, 2012, 02:43:29 pm
What if everyone in the audience had been carrying a gun?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 20, 2012, 02:54:00 pm


Yeah Breivik took advantage of the US constitution, right?

 >:(

how often does shit like this happen in a european country, how often does it happen in us states?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 20, 2012, 02:59:14 pm
Remember, just because that you made guns outlawed does not mean that the criminals are stopped. They still will get their guns or weapons one way or another.

And remember that the United States has a much bigger population than most of the gun-free-nations like UK and parts of Europe. We will bound to have our fair share of crazy people here.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 20, 2012, 03:07:12 pm
You don't seem to understand GBK's point. Let me rephrase even if the idea is "slightly" different :

How often does shit like this happen in the European Union (which counts 455 million inhabitants), how often does it happen in US ?


Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 20, 2012, 03:10:27 pm
Thanks DoppelgangerCybaster
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TempesT on July 20, 2012, 03:21:21 pm
yeah im sure he could full auto throw knives at people in a theater too

Goldeneye 2x Throwing Knives status
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 20, 2012, 03:32:27 pm
You don't seem to understand GBK's point. Let me rephrase even if the idea is "slightly" different :

How often does shit like this happen in the European Union (which counts 455 million inhabitants), how often does it happen in US ?

My post was for That Old Serpent, but it seemed that GBK posted his point before mine.

I am saying that there are going to be crazy people no matter where you live. And crazy people will do crazy things no matter how many laws you throw in their way.

I am not discussing gun politics anymore then what has been said, for the culture surrounding guns varies too widely to have a fruitful understanding here.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 20, 2012, 05:59:24 pm
i've heard of movies bombing but this is ridiculous
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 20, 2012, 06:01:39 pm
I got a pun, I got a pun !!!

Maybe they were trying to turn DKR into a box office bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_office_bomb).

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 20, 2012, 06:04:47 pm
wait ive got another one!! this movie sure BOMBED or sumptin tss
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 20, 2012, 06:06:42 pm
this happens all the time in mexico where guns are illegal so shut the fuck up mbh is right.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 20, 2012, 06:11:10 pm
Not sure Colorado has gangs that make it impossible to actually enforce the law that makes them illegal. Or gun smuggling to the same level.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 20, 2012, 06:37:05 pm
The USA has a lot more automobile related deaths than all of Europe as well, I dont hear anyone whining we need to abolish cars.  Some of you seem to think getting a gun is something you get in a McDonalds Happy meal

 >:(

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 20, 2012, 06:42:16 pm
actually 60% of all guns in the world are owned by civilians. so yeah it's like buying a happy meal.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 20, 2012, 06:47:39 pm
The USA has a lot more automobile related deaths than all of Europe as well, I dont hear anyone whining we need to abolish cars.  Some of you seem to think getting a gun is something you get in a McDonalds Happy meal

 >:(
They're definitely ludicrously easy to get in some states. Like Arizona, where no one has a problem selling guns to homeless people who obviously can't afford it. (http://mugenguild.com/forumx/index.php?topic=142730.0)

Not sure Colorado has gangs that make it impossible to actually enforce the law that makes them illegal. Or gun smuggling to the same level.
Actually we do have this terrible gang called the NRA that makes it really hard to make sensible gun laws and/or enforce existing ones.

actually 60% of all guns in the world are owned by civilians. so yeah it's like buying a happy meal.
How is this supposed to make any amount of sense.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 20, 2012, 06:56:15 pm
this happens all the time in mexico where guns are illegal so shut the fuck up mbh is right.
LOL Mexico.

The USA has a lot more automobile related deaths than all of Europe as well, I dont hear anyone whining we need to abolish cars.  Some of you seem to think getting a gun is something you get in a McDonalds Happy meal

 >:(
It's because you have a driving license that costs 50$ and that anybody can get at the first try. We have 1000€ driving licenses that ensure we know how to drive. ::)

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 修羅 on July 20, 2012, 06:57:01 pm
You know, what scares me the most is that I went to that theatre before, on my trip to Aurora. We even planned living there.
And I accidentally missed my local midnight screening.

So... fuck.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 20, 2012, 07:01:38 pm
That's it, I'm gonna go buy a gun today. 

 >:(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Duos.act on July 20, 2012, 07:52:52 pm
I blame your stupid constitution and it's right to bear arms. This is terrible.

Lol if you think making guns illegal would have prevented this.  We also ban drugs and yet the sale of them is one of the most consistently perpetual trades in the country. 
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 20, 2012, 08:05:07 pm
drugs and weapons = the same.

rite.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 20, 2012, 08:11:20 pm
drugs and weapons = the same.

rite.
That's not what he was saying at all.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 20, 2012, 08:12:12 pm
It's because you have a driving license that costs 50$ and that anybody can get at the first try. We have 1000€ driving licenses that ensure we know how to drive. ::)

Driving license?  We dont need those to drive.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 20, 2012, 08:16:22 pm
Here it is at 1600€ for a driving license already ..if you clear all tests in the first attempt..otherwise its over 2000

i remember i paid around 2400 in the end :(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 20, 2012, 08:18:40 pm
drugs and weapons = the same.

rite.
why are you so dumb
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 20, 2012, 08:21:34 pm
Driving license?  We dont need those to drive.
wait what
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bad Mr. Basara on July 20, 2012, 08:22:51 pm
Fuck that shit, that killer motherfucker avoids french premiere of DKR >:(

http://www.mediaite.com/online/warner-bros-forced-to-cancel-gala-french-premiere-of-the-dark-knight-rises-following-shooting/

EDIT: And not just the premiere >:( if that happens, I'm going to travel USA to kill that SOAB with my own hands
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/warner-bros-considers-cancellation-dark-knight-rises-screenings-48571
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 20, 2012, 08:36:18 pm
article said:
How will this affect what was supposed to be one of the biggest film events of the year?
Just ban the movie in the US and show it in civilized countries. ::)

Driving license?  We dont need those to drive.
wait what
True dat. You just need the key.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bad Mr. Basara on July 20, 2012, 08:40:44 pm
Not necesarily (http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7501919888/m/60319874101) ::)

Shit, I'm so angry for that news, stupid shithead guy for shooting people like that >:(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Insigniawarfare on July 20, 2012, 08:47:29 pm
Wow that's just crazy! This dude must have been planing this for awhile. At least the first part of his plan failed on blowing up his apartment building while he went to go kill those in the movie theater. I feel bad for those who died though.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 20, 2012, 08:49:34 pm
Just ban the movie in the US and show it in civilized countries. ::)
You civilized countries probably don't want to see a film made in such a violent and uncivilized country anyway, especially one about some uncouth vigilante. And an American one, at that!

someone fetch some smelling salts I am about to faint oh my
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 20, 2012, 08:58:16 pm
I am going to see it in the theatre anyway!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: nick. on July 20, 2012, 10:49:43 pm
Not sure Colorado has gangs that make it impossible to actually enforce the law that makes them illegal. Or gun smuggling to the same level.
We have a few gangs here but we're not really that bad.. we tend to be a calm little suburb.
You know, what scares me the most is that I went to that theatre before, on my trip to Aurora. We even planned living there.
And I accidentally missed my local midnight screening.

So... fuck.
Same. My sister got invited twice, and a couple friends missed it due to some issues.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 20, 2012, 11:01:12 pm
... croissant ...

So, in your country a driving license is more expensive than a used car ¡
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 21, 2012, 10:36:09 am
actually 60% of all guns in the world are owned by civilians. so yeah it's like buying a happy meal.
yeah..and probably 80% of this 60% was sold by the US alone  (like all those wealthy countries who sold weapons to various factions at war in Africa, like France did in Rwanda, by selling them to both the Hutus and the Tutsies)

I blame your stupid constitution and it's right to bear arms. This is terrible.

Lol if you think making guns illegal would have prevented this.  We also ban drugs and yet the sale of them is one of the most consistently perpetual trades in the country. 

dude: i think a 24 year old student (the murderer in question) would have more difficulty buying a gun if it wasn't legal because he sure as hell just can't come up to any gang banger to buy one... at the very least: it's MORE difficult than showing in a damn store to buy one.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 21, 2012, 11:26:12 am
I just watched several instructional videos on how to make guns for under $10 using plumbing supplies.  And I've decided to buy a judge!

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 21, 2012, 11:59:37 am
I just watched several instructional videos on how to make guns for under $10 using plumbing supplies.  And I've decided to buy a judge!

:bow:

That's a fine pick.
The judge revolver is quite reliable for self defense.

And really, making guns illegal or imposing a soft ban on them wouldn't stop nuts like this one.
It surely didn't stop the guy who did the Realengo shooting here in Brazil. :/
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 21, 2012, 12:25:45 pm
i like revolver guns, you don't have to clean up bullet cases.  they're handy in murder and quick getaways
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 21, 2012, 05:24:12 pm
I blame your stupid constitution and it's right to bear arms. This is terrible.

Sorry peaches, not taking the bait on this one.  Insane people determined to do bad things will find a way no matter what is outlawed. 

 >:(

So why make it easier for them...The right to bare arms only makes the process more swift and acts as training wheels. There is literally nothing to stop anyone from buying 2 semi automatic pistols in the US and walking into a crowded place and firing at will. Over here in the uk the laws on guns are so strict that morons are forced to buy air pistols and convert them into potentially lethal weapons at the risks of killing themselves due to the gun backfiring. Hence less gun related crime and I cant remember the last time in london where a massacre has taken place like this. Even if you cant stop them all. At least make it a difficult task to fulfill.

news like this is all too common in the US.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 21, 2012, 05:39:59 pm
We have the right to bear arms because when there was no United States, other forces were violating people's basic rights. Being sympathetic to such a life style, the forefathers of the United States made sure that it was okay and possible for the people to bear arms for their own protection. The law is there for a reason and no amount of arguing is going to change one of the very justifiable rights of the constitution of the United States of America (well, some Supreme Court arguing will change it).

Just because some countries in Europe don't even give their law enforcement guns, doesn't mean America needs to be the same way.

Similar to the ridiculous war on drugs, the governments of America could have a war on guns, and the result would be the same, or even worse; that result being that people are still going to get guns and people are still going to kill other people with those guns. Just like drugs are supposedly hard to get and people still get them. And the "war on guns" that I supposed would actually be a war. It could even lead to civil war.

The gun laws are fine, the people are bad. Bearing arms is liking bearing chainsaws. If I want to fucking kill someone, someone is going to fucking die. It doesn't matter if my chainsaw is as effective as a gun; one callously taken life is effectively too many.

Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 21, 2012, 06:07:06 pm
@rajaa

"Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people." <- and once again why provide them with the necessary means to make the process easier. It shouldnt be as simple as walking into a gunstore, buying a gun, buying a gas mask, vest and munitions then walking into a crowded place and mass murder. If the problem is the people, why give them the necessary means to carry out heinous acts. especially when that heinous act contributes to well over half of your overall crime rate.

The underlining problem is; any old clown can get hold of a gun which is why gun related crime in the US is so high. Logistics would suggest that the factor contributing in the ever climbing crime in the US should be erradicated. Gun related incidents contributes to almost 70% of the overall crime in the US so its fuckers with guns that are the problem. Sure enough if you take away their "tools of the trade" they'll replace it with another but in the long run 70% of your overall crime will have fallen and massacres like these wouldnt be so common.

Doing nothing will only see your crime rates rise and thus create yet another lawless state in america. May as well live in the third world.

oh and in europe law enforcement officers do carry guns... HK MP5s to be specific in london or HK G36s.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Lobo on July 21, 2012, 06:13:33 pm
I like how this guy bought bullet proof gear in the event he might get shot at. Fucking coward. Actually his cowardice gets even better, rigging his apartment with explosives. Calling him a pussy is an insult to women and cats.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 21, 2012, 07:00:43 pm
@rajaa

"Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people." <- and once again why provide them with the necessary means to make the process easier. It shouldnt be as simple as walking into a gunstore, buying a gun, buying a gas mask, vest and munitions then walking into a crowded place and mass murder.
It's not that simple.

If the problem is the people, why give them the necessary means to carry out heinous acts. especially when that heinous act contributes to well over half of your overall crime rate.
Deny everyone their protection because a few people might be crazy? No. That's like not selling knives because someone might go on a stabbing spree. Or maybe we should ban lighters and oil. We don't need licenses to buy oil and lighters.

The underlining problem is; any old clown can get hold of a gun which is why gun related crime in the US is so high.
No. That's not the underlying problem.

Logistics would suggest that the factor contributing in the ever climbing crime in the US should be erradicated. Gun related incidents contributes to almost 70% of the overall crime in the US so its fuckers with guns that are the problem. Sure enough if you take away their "tools of the trade" they'll replace it with another but in the long run 70% of your overall crime will have fallen and massacres like these wouldnt be so common.
Stopped reading at 70%. Don't pull things out of nowhere. Please.

Doing nothing will only see your crime rates rise and thus create yet another lawless state in america. May as well live in the third world.
What? What? What?

oh and in europe law enforcement officers do carry guns... HK MP5s to be specific in london or HK G36s.
Key word from my statement: "some."
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 21, 2012, 07:11:54 pm
@rajaa

"Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people." <- and once again why provide them with the necessary means to make the process easier. It shouldnt be as simple as walking into a gunstore, buying a gun, buying a gas mask, vest and munitions then walking into a crowded place and mass murder.
It's not that simple.

If the problem is the people, why give them the necessary means to carry out heinous acts. especially when that heinous act contributes to well over half of your overall crime rate.
Deny everyone their protection because a few people might be crazy? No. That's like not selling knives because someone might go on a stabbing spree. Or maybe we should ban lighters and oil. We don't need licenses to buy oil and lighters.



In general you are right..but comparing knifes..with pistols or machinepistols/ guns?

Come on Rajaa. The one thing is made to work with it in the kitchen the other item is clearly created to kill with it. Thats what weapons do. They kill people, they dont protect them
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 21, 2012, 07:15:49 pm
I'm not comparing knives and pistols, I'm comparing how easy it is to get ANYTHING to kill people; if someone wants to kill people, it is as easy as baking a fucking pie - in fact, it's even easier. Quicker too. A gun is just a another human operated tool.

Didn't everyone already call you stupid for misunderstanding that concept a few posts ago in this very same thread?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 21, 2012, 07:32:33 pm
They did? Good i didnt follow the whole thread lol

Yes, if someone wants to kill someone, its relative easy, depending on how intelligent, fast or powerful that person is, my point was, that you can kill 1-5 people maybe with a knife at a public place before people stop you (except you can fight with a knife) but with a gun you can kill 20+ people in a few minutes , thats the big difference i meant


also

(http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-378795-galleryV9-ttjc.jpg)

WHAT A GODDAMN IDIOTIC STUPID GUY. 24 years old and has nothing better to do than to kill and hurt a ton of people watching a movie in a cinema. what the hell was in his mind.

This case is unbelievable and terrible.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 21, 2012, 07:37:17 pm
depending on how intelligent, fast or powerful that person is, my point was, that you can kill 1-5 people maybe with a knife at a public place before people stop you (except you can fight with a knife) but with a gun you can kill 20+ people in a few minutes , thats the big difference i meant
I can kill a whole apartment building with a lighter and some oil and I'll still have money left over to grab a bite to eat and watch the show. I don't need to be quick, smart, and/or strong to do it either. Might even be able to get the next building on fire if it's close enough.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 21, 2012, 07:41:32 pm
-no rajaa it is that simple......thats why gun crime rates are so fucking high in america.


-you need a gun to protect yourself? I'm sure the crips and bloods state the same claim when they are apprehended by the police for possession of a fire arm in public.
making the comparisson between purchasing a gun and a knife? or as you put (I'm comparing how easy it is to get ANYTHING to kill people; Well rajaa I use a knife to butter my breads and slice my meats. I suppose I could go out and kill someone with it though I guess. But what could I do with a automatic pistol firing armour piercing rounds? what could I do with tear gas?  A knife shouldnt have the same availability as a gun the fact that you even stated this makes me worry about your country. Sure people can find anything to kill someone with but like i said for the millionenth why provide them with the tools to make the job even easier and add to the already soaring crime rates in your country.

-check your statistics



-"what what what" I believe I was crystal clear on that point, dont see how you could have translated that statement any other way

- I stated a fact about armed forces in london I didn't need to acknowledge the "some" in your statement
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 21, 2012, 07:44:36 pm
I'm with Maverik on this one (yeah, that sounds like a USA vs Europe argument ...)

Of course a crazy guy can take a knife, a chainsaw or a fucking pencil and go kill somebody if he wants, but it won't be possible for him to do it as easily as if he was able to purchase a gun and shoot people in the street.
Of course somebody motivated enough can find the means to purchase a gun and do some massive killing (cf. Breivik in Norway or recent shootings in Toulouse, France), but it won't be as easy as going to your local retailer and buying a gun.
Of course men are to blame when it comes to something like this, but you can always fight crime by actually not HELPING people purchase these weapons.

Example :
Imagine the US authorizes citizens to purchase nuclear or biological weapons, in order to protect themselves against possible "bad guys". Basically the idea is to dissuade people from killing the others : "you kill a member of my family, I'll erradicate yours with a nuclear strike or anthrax". Basic dissuasion. That's why civilized countries have nuclear weapons in the first place. Not to actually bomb other countries, but dissuade others from attacking them.
Now, a civilian uses his recently purchased nuclear weapon ($500 at Walmart) in the streets and kills 300 people in the process. Who do you blame ? The guy for his stupidity/craziness, or the government for actually authorizing weapons of mass destruction that are to be used as "self defense" ? Of course this guy would have killed people with another weapon if he couldn't purchase a nuclear weapon, but he wouldn't have been able to kill SO MANY people SO EASILY.
Now apply this logic to guns.

Now, it obviously isn't really easy to ban weapons in a country where they're so common. The lobbying companies (dunno their name nor their actual power, but I know they're VERY rich) wouldn't really allow such laws completely prohibiting weapons to be voted. It's easy for us to say "ban weapons", when it's actually not possible easily, but as long as nothing is done, massive shootings in the US are just local news that nobody should really care about, because they're just trivialities they're asking for.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 21, 2012, 07:55:40 pm
I'm with Maverik on this one (yeah, that sounds like a USA vs Europe argument ...)

Of course a crazy guy can take a knife, a chainsaw or a fucking pencil and go kill somebody if he wants, but it won't be possible for him to do it as easily as if he was able to purchase a gun and shoot people in the street.
Of course somebody motivated enough can find the means to purchase a gun and do some massive killing (cf. Breivik in Norway or recent shootings in Toulouse, France), but it won't be as easy as going to your local retailer and buying a gun.
Of course men are to blame when it comes to something like this, but you can always fight crime by actually not HELPING people purchase these weapons.

Example :
Imagine the US authorizes citizens to purchase nuclear or biological weapons, in order to protect themselves against possible "bad guys". Basically the idea is to dissuade people from killing the others : "you kill a member of my family, I'll erradicate yours with a nuclear strike or anthrax". Basic dissuasion. That's why civilized countries have nuclear weapons in the first place. Not to actually bomb other countries, but dissuade others from attacking them.
Now, a civilian uses his recently purchased nuclear weapon ($500 at Walmart) in the streets and kills 300 people in the process. Who do you blame ? The guy for his stupidity/craziness, or the government for actually authorizing weapons of mass destruction that are to be used as "self defense" ? Of course this guy would have killed people with another weapon if he couldn't purchase a nuclear weapon, but he wouldn't have been able to kill SO MANY people SO EASILY.
Now apply this logic to guns.

Now, it obviously isn't really easy to ban weapons in a country where they're so common. The lobbying companies (dunno their name nor their actual power, but I know they're VERY rich) wouldn't really allow such laws completely prohibiting weapons to be voted. It's easy for us to say "ban weapons", when it's actually not possible easily, but as long as nothing is done, massive shootings in the US are just local news that nobody should really care about, because they're just trivialities they're asking for.

Really? Are you absolutely sure about this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realengo_massacre)

It's damn fucking easy to get an illegal gun here that any nut can get one, like the guy above did.
Making guns illegal won't solve this.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 21, 2012, 07:55:59 pm
depending on how intelligent, fast or powerful that person is, my point was, that you can kill 1-5 people maybe with a knife at a public place before people stop you (except you can fight with a knife) but with a gun you can kill 20+ people in a few minutes , thats the big difference i meant
I can kill a whole apartment building with a lighter and some oil and I'll still have money left over to grab a bite to eat and watch the show. I don't need to be quick, smart, and/or strong to do it either. Might even be able to get the next building on fire if it's close enough.
Are these cases where maniacs kill 10+ people done with lighters and a bit oil or with guns?

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 21, 2012, 08:16:35 pm
@ Bia : I'm not saying it's black or white. I also covered this with :
Quote
Of course a crazy guy can take a knife, a chainsaw or a fucking pencil and go kill somebody if he wants, but it won't be possible for him to do it as easily as if he was able to purchase a gun and shoot people in the street.
Of course somebody motivated enough can find the means to purchase a gun and do some massive killing (cf. Breivik in Norway or recent shootings in Toulouse, France), but it won't be as easy as going to your local retailer and buying a gun.
Of course men are to blame when it comes to something like this, but you can always fight crime by actually not HELPING people purchase these weapons.

Shit happens everywhere, but it happens A LOT in a country that is supposed to be "civilized".

I don't know Brazil enough to know if the government actually has the power to enforce the laws about weapons (or if they even want to). When I say you must "abolish guns", I'm not just talking about ministers signing a piece of paper (called law) forbidding weapons, and doing nothing afterwards. I'm actually talking about enforcing said laws, by putting time, man power and money in the process.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 21, 2012, 08:22:55 pm
Let's just agree to disagree. We all know how internet arguments like this end up. :P



-check your statistics
In the United States of America, 70% of all crimes are not committed with guns. You are dead wrong. Sorry.

-"what what what" I believe I was crystal clear on that point, dont see how you could have translated that statement any other way

- I stated a fact about armed forces in london I didn't need to acknowledge the "some" in your statement
You don't have to acknowledge the part of my post of which you're trying to repute? Must be some new, hip argumentative technique of which I've never had the pleasure of learning.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 21, 2012, 08:29:26 pm
Fully agreeing with Rajaa....this time :-)


hoooow..ever

@Rajaa are you sure that Maverik didnt mean a statistic involving crimes which ended in the death of persons?

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 21, 2012, 08:34:45 pm
I'm sure he meant of ALL of crime:

Gun related incidents contributes to almost 70% of the overall crime in the US so its fuckers with guns that are the problem.

I'm not sure how one could get such a bogus percentage when the uniformed crime reports are easily accessible on the FBI's website.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 21, 2012, 08:36:28 pm
Oh ^^ i overread that

Well, than its up to Maverik to show a source for this statistic
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Alpaca-San on July 21, 2012, 08:38:54 pm
The right to bear arms is a constitutional failsafe.

Interesting how the scumbag chose to strategically wait for the midnight screening of a highly anticipated move to begin his rampage at.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 21, 2012, 09:28:10 pm
I have a right to have a gun to protect myself. I mean, someone with a gun could barge in and shoot at me ! Proof is, having a gun to defend themselves sure saved all those people in the theater that shot back at the madman.
Oh wait... Having a gun to defend yourself doesn't work. I'm not even talking about having the right to carry one, I'm saying that excuse is wrong on the ground that it doesn't work, I haven't heard about a lot of shooting incidents where the victims proved their right to have a gun was useful.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 21, 2012, 09:33:58 pm
this is relevant and recent http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/328955/28/Elderly-man-fends-off-robbers-at-internet-cafe-
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 21, 2012, 09:44:52 pm
@gbk

violent crime not all crime....not ALL


@rajaa

Your selective reading and ignorant responses are hilarious and I do agree that we should just "agree to disagree" as entertaining as they are to read.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 21, 2012, 09:45:53 pm
But what could I do with a automatic pistol firing armour piercing rounds? what could I do with tear gas?
Well, you need all that to hunt the elusive American Armored Laser Eye deer. :haw:

You don't need a fucking machine gun with a 100 round clip to protect yourself or hunt anything. There is only one use for that kind of gun and it's for killing people. Surely we can all agree that these types of weapons should be banned, right?

I'm with Maverik on this one (yeah, that sounds like a USA vs Europe argument ...)
It's more of a gun control people vs. gun rights people.

An "America vs Europe" argument is reducing the issue to a dumb, simplistic, "WE ARE BETTER THAN YOU VS. NO WE ARE".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 21, 2012, 09:55:48 pm
@rajaa

Your selective reading and ignorant responses are hilarious and I do agree that we should just "agree to disagree" as entertaining as they are to read.

You didn't say "only violent crimes" before, so there's no selective reading going on -- and you're still wrong.

You are the only one who has spat ignorance in this topic, you obviously are ignorant of the definition of the word "ignorant." And the worst part is that you're not even gonna admit you're wrong. :-\
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on July 21, 2012, 10:03:19 pm
While the topic is controversial, I don't think banning/forbidding guns would make much of a difference in a long term scale(short term maybe, but long term? No.) If a pencil can kill someone, why haven't we banned them? ANYTHING can kill people, there are many ways to make projectiles not equal to the speed but equal to the damage of a gun, there's ways to get around laws. It's not like banning guns will stop people from carrying or using them. Remember the alcohol ban from 1920-1933? How well that worked? People ended up running shady businesses where you could buy alcohol, and I doubt the majority of the profit went to the government.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 21, 2012, 10:05:38 pm
Yes. Too many precedents say that a all out ban will do absolutely nothing. What are we if we don't learn from our history as a civilization?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 21, 2012, 10:11:42 pm
While the topic is controversial, I don't think banning/forbidding guns would make much of a difference in a long term scale(short term maybe, but long term? No.) If a pencil can kill someone, why haven't we banned them? ANYTHING can kill people, there are many ways to make projectiles not equal to the speed but equal to the damage of a gun, there's ways to get around laws. It's not like banning guns will stop people from carrying or using them. Remember the alcohol ban from 1920-1933? How well that worked? People ended up running shady businesses where you could buy alcohol, and I doubt the majority of the profit went to the government.

yes and do you think a simple ban could stop a person from getting a gun? maybe i'm a biased but owning a gun isn't that bad and from where i live own a legitimate licensed gun is pretty difficult to acquire the problem is the illegal ones but selling and allowing civilians to own semi/full automatic rifle or a m-gun is a little bit over the top.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 21, 2012, 10:13:19 pm
there are several laws against bank robbery and guess what
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 21, 2012, 10:22:23 pm
did they found out why he did all that?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 21, 2012, 10:30:45 pm
i read he is a psycho who lived in his own fantasy world or something like that  o_O

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 21, 2012, 10:42:34 pm

yes and do you think a simple ban could stop a person from getting a gun? maybe i'm a biased but owning a gun isn't that bad and from where i live own a legitimate licensed gun is pretty difficult to acquire the problem is the illegal ones but selling and allowing civilians to own semi/full automatic rifle or a m-gun is a little bit over the top.

in the UK its 7 years imprisonment for simply carrying a gun or a knife since  2007 I think, and the overall crime rates have fallen by at least 5% since then. The US need to be more strict on gun regulations even if they do not decide to ban guns make them difficult to obtain.

If i wanted to purchase even a air gun over here I'd have to do the following.
buy it online, since you can no longer get them directly from shops.
fill out a form
get a air gun license
pick up the air pistol from the location sent via email in the shop.
fill out more papers show passport/ convictions
you are then automatically registered on the gun owners system and local police station.

when you get your gun it will be in some whacky fluorescent stupid colour unless you specifically order a realistic replica in which you will need another kind of license not to mention you will get interrogated like fuck
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 21, 2012, 10:47:12 pm
(http://righttruth.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c49a69e20120a53ecd9a970c-320wi)

He didnt need a gun.  He used fertilizer and fuel oil.

 >:(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 21, 2012, 10:53:36 pm
@missb

what is the percentage of people using fertilizer and fuel oil to kill versus how many that use guns? now put yourself in a government position, where do you start?
i'm sure there is someone out there that  probably used his dick to kill someone. But how often does that happen.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 21, 2012, 11:12:15 pm
The point is someone that evil determined to kill a bunch of people will find a way to do it. 


Most Americans, such as myself, buy their weapons legally and use them for sport or protection or both  Making it harder for people like me to buy a gun isn't going to prevent any crime, because criminals are going to find a way to get weapons or make them.


Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty


 >:(


Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 21, 2012, 11:19:04 pm
Mobutu Sese Seko said:
This Aurora shooting tragedy could have been avoided if everyone in the theater had been a responsibly armed citizen, willing to fire a gun in the dark at a body-armored man dressed in black in a room fogged with tear gas.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 21, 2012, 11:42:05 pm
Okay, so a simple observation shows that crime rate with guns is much more important in the US than in Western Europe, Japan or Australia/NZ.
A reading of this topic shows that "guns are not the problem", since everybody should be allowed to carry a missile launcher and an AK47 in the streets for self defense. The problem comes from men themselves, not weapons.

Conclusion : the US are full of psychos ready to kill everybody in the streets, or at least they have more psychos than in the rest of the civilized world, so you should hire more psychiatrists and therapists to heal said psychos (or alternatively, since you seem to be more concerned about weapons/security/army than by health, just send the mother fuckers to jail or even kill them).
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 21, 2012, 11:45:32 pm
Well that's a wild, tangential exaggeration.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 22, 2012, 12:00:01 am
It makes perfect sense to me, Rajaa.

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 22, 2012, 12:16:47 am
Making it harder for people like me to buy a gun isn't going to prevent any crime, because criminals are going to find a way to get weapons or make them.
Nor is it going to do you any good or save you from much. Just because you can, doesn't mean it's good.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 22, 2012, 12:21:56 am
That's the thing i meant basically. America's "Right to bear arms" has meant a huge number of people have access to guns because a gun is something you should own.

Although i'm quite sure i could find out, i have no idea where to go at ALL in NZ to even buy one. There are a few hunting stores where i could probably buy a single shot rifle/shotgun. Pistols or semi-auto? Nope. Licensing is strict. You have to renew it periodically.

Basically, gun rules over there are lax, and have fostered a society that normalises them and what they can do. The primary implement for committing crimes here is the claw hammer, our criminals rarely have guns. And our cops don't have them either (they have tasers).
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Foobs on July 22, 2012, 12:26:40 am
The point is someone that evil determined to kill a bunch of people will find a way to do it. 

Indeed. You people are excessively naive if you think any law can stop a pyscopath. If he couldn't buy a gun from a store, he'd buy it from a ratty looking guy in the slums of the city.

PS: Explosives are illegal as well and that didn't stop him from getting some, did it?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 12:28:13 am
Quote
If i wanted to purchase even a air gun over here I'd have to do the following.
buy it online, since you can no longer get them directly from shops.
fill out a form
get a air gun license
pick up the air pistol from the location sent via email in the shop.
fill out more papers show passport/ convictions
you are then automatically registered on the gun owners system and local police station.

when you get your gun it will be in some whacky fluorescent stupid colour unless you specifically order a realistic replica in which you will need another kind of license not to mention you will get interrogated like fuck

--------

In USA, you go to walmart and you're done  ::)

No wonder they have so many  idiot / unconscious / uneducated / unstable / paranoid / etc  THUS dangerous in the streets which creates even more idiocy around because their existence triggers such reaction

"oh streets are danegrous with these armed psychos - I NEED A GUN AS WELL to protect myself"


-------

Quote
Making it harder for people like me to buy a gun isn't going to prevent any crime
Quote
Making it harder for people like me to buy a gun isn't going to prevent ANY crime

That statement is ridiculous

- What is the probability of having firearms related incident in a country where you buy a gun at the supermarket and the legislation is favorable to such behavior ?

- What is the probability of having firearms related incident in a country where to get a gun you have to go through a whole bunch of shit like MAVERIK described for UK ?

Are you actually trying to cinvince anybody here that this major difference will not affect "ANY" crime ? Be reasonable.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 12:33:13 am
No wonder they have so many  idiot / unconscious / uneducated / unstable / paranoid / etc
Um. Guns don't make people any of those things except for maybe paranoid. "Unconscious" doesn't even fit in that list. What.



Basically, gun rules over there are lax, and have fostered a society that normalises them and what they can do.
State by state. City by city. In New York City, it's nearly impossible for people (except law enforcement agents) to get guns legally. Many of the guns crimes here are with illegal guns.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TempesT on July 22, 2012, 12:35:34 am
*buys a gun*

thanks for th- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 22, 2012, 12:36:23 am
Quote
"Unconscious" doesn't even fit in that last.
He means irresponsible, unaware of the consequences of one's acts.

Just because a psychopath wouldn't be bothered by laws to obtain weapons to perform some mass killing, doesn't make it right for everybody to own a killing weapon.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 12:38:24 am
Guns don't make people unaware of their actions. :blank:

Psychopaths aren't the only people who use illegal guns to kill people. They're the very small minority.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 22, 2012, 12:38:51 am
Most Americans, such as myself, buy their weapons legally and use them for sport or protection or both
What possible use could one have for a gun that is fully automatic with a 100 round clip for either hunting or protection?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 12:52:50 am
I am not saying guns make people bad.
I am saying bad people can do WORST things when they have easy access to the most extreme tools.

Imagine a guy who is not a psycho but is emotionally fragile or a bit excessive, he could have a up and downs without ening up in jail in a weapon restricted country like Australia. Maybe the worst he will do is break a few bones of the guy who his girlfriend cheated on him with, with a baseball bat or his own fists.

Now the same scenario in USA, the guy gets pissed, go to walmart, buy a gun, and kills the other guy... He didn't mean to after calming down but under the emotion he just shooted him. Didn't wanted to kill him but he made a bad shoot. Ended up in a vital area instead of a benine one.

common scenario for me.

There are many more like that and they do not involve psychos or proper criminals (whi are like Rajaa said, a minority).

There is a difference between making a living of crimes and an average person who is not very clever, or has a few issues that are not extreme (like a psychopath) but can lead to very tragic results if put in a favorable environment.
USA is such environment in my opinion

Quote
"Unconscious" doesn't even fit in that last.
He means irresponsible, unaware of the consequences of one's acts.

Just because a psychopath wouldn't be bothered by laws to obtain weapons to perform some mass killing, doesn't make it right for everybody to own a killing weapon.

You got that perfectly right.

Most Americans, such as myself, buy their weapons legally and use them for sport or protection or both
What possible use could one have for a gun that is fully automatic with a 100 round clip for either hunting or protection?

LoL . I applaude the level of sarcasm in your post  8)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 22, 2012, 12:54:49 am
Having guns as a normal part of society DOES normalise them. You see someone with a gun over here, you want to know why he's got it, you especially want to know why he's walking around town with it. You see a gun in the US "oh he has a gun". I'm safer, i'm seeing something abnormal and have the option to avoid it. You see something normal/common and don't alter your behaviour.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

There are places worse, but number #4 isn't great is it?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 22, 2012, 01:00:54 am
LoL . I applaude the level of sarcasm in your post  8)
i don't think that was sarcastic
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 01:02:21 am
LoL France is not even in the statistics.

LoL . I applaude the level of sarcasm in your post  8)
i don't think that was sarcastic

oh... well... that's quite sad then  :-\

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 22, 2012, 01:03:13 am
i don't see what's sad about a straightforward question
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 01:09:04 am
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
Inb4 pikachu tells us that if you divide by the number of inhabitants, US has quite a good ranking. ::)

What possible use could one have for a gun that is fully automatic with a 100 round clip for either hunting or protection?
More efficient hunting and 100% rate protection (if you shoot first). ;D

And yeah, what Cyanide said.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 01:10:05 am
There is nothing sad about A straightforward question

there is something sad about THIS question IF it is straightforward indeed.

Because if it is, it communicates "well i don't see what else you could do with a gun than to protect yourself or shoot in a shooting club"

You don't have to be a genius to know that you can do much more things with a gun. And those other things are not good.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 22, 2012, 01:14:06 am
there is nothing sad about A starightforward question

there is something sad about THIS question IF it is straightforward indeed.

Because if it is, it communicates "well i don't see what else you could do with a gun than to protect yourself or shoot in a shooting club"

You don't have to be a genius to know that you can do much more things with a gun. And those other things are not good.
Wha...?

I asked that question because those types of guns are NOT needed for either hunting or protection.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 01:15:12 am
:???:
Not sure, but Jmorphman rather looks like the anti-gun type of guy, so he's asking "why in hell do you buy such weapons if you're only going to use them for sports or hunting ?"

EDIT : beat to it by the guy himself... :(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 22, 2012, 01:16:02 am
that site's iffy. the stats are old and some countries are left out (there's no way chile has more murders by gun than brazil). although america must be high on the list either way.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/brazil
there was also a school shooting in france this year http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/world/europe/jewish-school-shooting-in-france.html?pagewanted=all clearly the country is full of crazy idiots.

it's a straightforward question. he wants to know what possible use there is for such a powerful gun when it comes to hunting or protection. there's no sarcasm involved.


Inb4 pikachu tells us that if you divide by the number of inhabitants, US has quite a good ranking. ::)
what's wrong with that?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 22, 2012, 01:21:25 am
what's wrong with that?
Because then it's harder to feel superior to those dumb Americans.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 22, 2012, 01:24:08 am
americans have killed: millions of people
i have killed: nobody

fucking american scumbags.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 01:25:02 am
Referring to this :
And remember that the United States has a much bigger population than most of the gun-free-nations like UK and parts of Europe. We will bound to have our fair share of crazy people here.

Because then it's harder to feel superior to those dumb Americans.
I was actually not attacking/mocking the US for once. ::)

there was also a school shooting in france this year http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/world/europe/jewish-school-shooting-in-france.html?pagewanted=all clearly the country is full of crazy idiots.
Yeah, that's what I was talking about earlier when citing "Toulouse, France".
I blame Vyx.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 22, 2012, 01:27:19 am


I asked that question because those types of guns are NOT needed for either hunting or protection.

Maybe not where YOU live, I have a terrible chipmonk problem.

Honestly dont make me go drag up that graph that shows hundreds of times more deaths and injuries caused by automobiles than guns here.

We have the right to bear arms, we arent forced to buy them and we arent forced to give them up.  I have never seen a gun for sale in one of the local WalMarts.  Most gun owners keep them  at home or in the car, they dont go carrying them in the street.  Businesses don't allow you to carry one inside.  The only people you see carrying a gun around in public are law enforcement types or a really stupid criminal.  We really are pretty civilized about all this.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 22, 2012, 01:27:30 am
you were making fun of pikachu guy who was actually making sense for a change. i don't know why you see that statement as mockable
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 22, 2012, 01:28:41 am
It`s simple.

There is a song by the name "I am afraid of americans" 

But there aren`t songs like "i am afraid of french guys"

see?

I solved the whole discussion for all of you with this simple example now



Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 22, 2012, 01:31:10 am
1: that's because literally nobody is afraid of the french
2:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 22, 2012, 01:33:32 am
Of course not, they dont have guns

that was the punchline of the post :-)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Speedpreacher on July 22, 2012, 01:34:16 am
I'm afraid of French guys
They frighten me with their French miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinds
I wake up in the night
and shiver with fright
because they're gonna drink up all of my wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine

Put some wubwubs on it and call it day.

You're welcome.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 01:36:16 am
Quote
I have never seen a gun for sale in one of the local WalMarts



 ::)

---
My uncle has been living in USA for 15 years. When i came to visit him in Florida, he showed me his gun (i think it was a glock, not sure)...
I was quite disappointed. He told me it was very simple to get it. He got it "to protect himself" from junkies and gangs he told me...

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 01:37:47 am
you were making fun of pikachu guy who was actually making sense for a change. i don't know why you see that statement as mockable
Read the post I wrote just after.
I'm not going to make any calculations about the total number of murders with firearms in the EU vs US, nor make statistics wrt the number of inhabitants.
He was basically saying : large number inhabitants -> large number murders by gun, and comparing this to murders in the EU. It doesn't work like that.

But granted, that's not his worst post.

Also ... wait what the french. o_O
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 22, 2012, 01:41:46 am
I'm not going to make any calculations about the total number of murders with firearms in the EU vs US, nor make statistics wrt the number of inhabitants.
Then stop talking out of your ass. :P
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 01:46:18 am
They're trying to shift the attention on the French thing so we don't focus on what Cyanide's post has pointed out as obvious.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 22, 2012, 01:48:12 am
They're trying to shift the attention on the French thing so we don't focus on what Cyanide's post has pointed out as obvious.
Who is "they"?

The French thing is just a joke, the discussion is still going on. And for the record, I agree completely with Cyanide.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 01:54:01 am
They're trying to shift the attention on the French thing so we don't focus on what Cyanide's post has pointed out as obvious.
Who is "they"?

The French thing is just a joke, the discussion is still going on. And for the record, I agree completely with Cyanide.

I am not talking to you. You have been mentionned as a potential anti gun person. Good for you.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 22, 2012, 02:00:09 am


I asked that question because those types of guns are NOT needed for either hunting or protection.

Maybe not where YOU live, I have a terrible chipmonk problem.

Honestly dont make me go drag up that graph that shows hundreds of times more deaths and injuries caused by automobiles than guns here.

We have the right to bear arms, we arent forced to buy them and we arent forced to give them up.  I have never seen a gun for sale in one of the local WalMarts.  Most gun owners keep them  at home or in the car, they dont go carrying them in the street.  Businesses don't allow you to carry one inside.  The only people you see carrying a gun around in public are law enforcement types or a really stupid criminal.  We really are pretty civilized about all this.

:bow:

None of that explains why you need a 100 clip gun.  That gun is used for supress fire and crowd control, there should be a limit to how guns are supplied to people, just because criminals might get ak47 it doesnt mean that the common person should be able to buy a bazooka un hindered.
There is also the situation of gun stocking, this dude bought in four months four weapons, one of which a 100 clip gun. And that raises no red flags? Thats simply stupid.
How can people even act surprised that he used those guns, they were supplied legally, did they expect him to go face gangs of marauding bears?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 22, 2012, 02:00:34 am
Quote
I have never seen a gun for sale in one of the local WalMarts

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCmt4cf8YTs[/youtube]

 ::)

---

I said local, that guy said he's in Baltimore, thats over 600 km from me. And he was showing a muzzle loader.  No  psycho intent on killing a bunch of people is gonna go after them with a muzzle loader, unless he intends to club them to death with it.

I usually agree with Cyanide, but this time he's wrong.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: blackstar on July 22, 2012, 02:01:48 am
Americans being able to buy deadly tools for to sole purpose of maiming or killing people never seases to amaze me. Honestly the right to bear arms is actually the dumbest piece of crap I have EVER heard...EVER. Unfortunately Americans are too stubborn and set in their ways to give in their guns so unfortunately it will stay like this for a while.

Also I think the maniac who killed all those people in the screening should simply be put to death no questions asked because to me a human that has made the consious decision to kill an innocent person is no longer human and so should be stripped of their human rights
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 02:06:43 am
I said local, that guy said he's in Baltimore, thats over 600 km from me. And he was showing a muzzle loader.  No  psycho intent on killing a bunch of people is gonna go after them with a muzzle loader, unless he intends to club them to death with it.

It doesn't matter.  The point is proven ---> Guns easy access through superstore such as walmart in USA
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 22, 2012, 02:08:21 am
It doesn't matter.  The point is proven ---> Guns easy access through superstore such as walmart.
not in all states though?? you're kind of dumb
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 02:10:53 am
It doesn't matter.  The point is proven ---> Guns easy access through superstore such as walmart.
not in all states though?? you're kind of dumb

I knew you wouldn't resist sooner or later ;D

There is no need for me to insult you anymore explicitly. You are at a level where you pretty much do the job for me.

Whatever you say will not erase the statistics ALL STATES INVOLVED OR NOT. especially insulting me. Keep going please.  :)

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 22, 2012, 02:12:39 am
actually you're being really stupid about the issue. you make misinformed generalizations. thanks
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 02:16:06 am
Rajaa said that guns are forbidden in NYC, but many people have illegal ones.
Thing is : if you can buy them at 100km from NYC and then drive back home to Manhattan without anybody checking your car, then there's no point. You decently can't check every single person entering or going out of each state.

You have to be able to make guns illegal in the whole country at once, and having people give back/sell their weapons, which is obviously not going to happen.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 22, 2012, 02:19:42 am
Honestly the right to bear arms is actually the dumbest piece of crap I have EVER heard...EVER.
You must not get out much if that's the dumbest thing you've ever heard. You must also not know much about the American Revolution and just why that amendment was put into place.

Unfortunately Americans are too stubborn and set in their ways to give in their guns so unfortunately it will stay like this for a while.
Yes, we, the Americans, as a hive-mind, will never ever give up our guns. Resistence is futile. Your life, as it has been - is over. From this time forward, you will service - us.  :borg:

Also I think the maniac who killed all those people in the screening should simply be put to death no questions asked because to me a human that has made the consious decision to kill an innocent person is no longer human and so should be stripped of their human rights
Yeah, fuck a free and just trial!!!

Thing is : if you can buy them at 100km from NYC and then drive back home to Manhattan without anybody checking your car, then there's no point. You decently can't check every single person entering or going out of each state.
This is what is happening in Arizona and Mexico. (http://mugenguild.com/forumx/index.php?topic=142730.0)

You have to be able to make guns illegal in the whole country at once, and having people give back/sell their weapons, which is obviously not going to happen.
Never say never! >:[
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 22, 2012, 02:25:02 am
Don't feel targeted when someone talks about Americans. You're gay, so it cancels it out.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 22, 2012, 02:26:59 am
Don't feel targeted when someone talks about Americans. You're gay, so it cancels it out.
I don't feel targeted because I'm an adult, and the stupid shit someone says about me or my country is not gonna get me angry.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 02:29:37 am
Well I think there is no need to add anything. Stats are here. Point is proven.
The rest is just trying to avoid loosing face or splitting a hair

---
Don't feel targeted when someone talks about Americans. You're gay, so it cancels it out.

 I laughed a lot.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on July 22, 2012, 04:28:30 am
making guns illegal in an entire country because someone or some people out of the large populace decided to misuse them is irrational. You can tighten up gun laws, and fill in loose holes/add new laws, but forbidding them to all citizens seems miscalculated and irrational from a standpoint that not everyone is a mass murderer/shooter. You don't see this happen every day. So yeah, making guns illegal is a terrible idea because it shoehorns in a lot of people who AREN'T illegally using them.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 22, 2012, 04:41:36 am
Quote
I have never seen a gun for sale in one of the local WalMarts

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCmt4cf8YTs[/youtube]

 ::)

---
My uncle has been living in USA for 15 years. When i came to visit him in Florida, he showed me his gun (i think it was a glock, not sure)...
I was quite disappointed. He told me it was very simple to get it. He got it "to protect himself" from junkies and gangs he told me...

what the fuck is this??? So your telling me somebody could walk in there and simply buy a  shotgun and walk out? no papers signed, no nothing? fucking hell.....


Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 22, 2012, 04:45:43 am
I don't think anyone has said "make them illegal" really.

All i'm saying is that it needs to be removed from the constitution because it's really stupid there and the people writing it have pointed at both militia and the fact that the "arms" were all single shot weapons that you had to load with lead balls rather than automatic weaponry so the constitution is out of date.

You then need to tighten the rules up so people can get guns if they show themselves to be stable people who are going to be sensible with their gun. This means background checks, psychological evaluation, some money spent, and re-evaluation after 5 years or something. Owning a gun needs to be a privilege. Not a right.

Yes there will still be people out there with guns who shouldn't have them. Yes people will still get shot. However many people who shouldn't have guns won't which can only improve things.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Speedpreacher on July 22, 2012, 04:52:43 am
what the fuck is this??? So your telling me somebody could walk in there and simply buy a  shotgun and walk out? no papers signed, no nothing? fucking hell.....

You have to be at least 18 and have no felonies (or domestic violence claims in most cases) on record to buy a gun at Wal-mart.

EDIT:Of course if some stupid fucker stocks them with the BB guns it's conceivable someone with a trenchcoat can probably walk out with one.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cazaki on July 22, 2012, 04:57:43 am
^ And that gets a little more problematic with stores that sell weaponry that can be absolutely devastating. Gander Mountain (Redneck heaven.) comes to mind.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on July 22, 2012, 05:00:39 am
Backgrounds checks are a good idea, as well as all the things you mentioned Cyanide. I wholeheartedly agree.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: MDD on July 22, 2012, 05:37:13 am
Oh my god Westboro just stop please. (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-westboro-church-plans-to-picket-the-aurora-shooting-memorial-service)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: D'Evil on July 22, 2012, 05:38:48 am
Pathetic. Fucking pathetic.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cazaki on July 22, 2012, 05:39:47 am
That's just so stupid.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Orochi Gill on July 22, 2012, 05:44:16 am
Someone needs to genocide the WBC
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cazaki on July 22, 2012, 05:45:50 am
Too much. Too. Much.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 22, 2012, 06:24:06 am
Why is it that group is still alive? There are enough nutty people with guns in the US, why haven't they been shot?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DMK on July 22, 2012, 06:41:03 am
Quote
The Westboro blog yesterday had a short post called "Aurora, CO Judgement which started with the line "God Sent The Shooter to Aurora, CO. He killed 12 and injured 50+ Westboro Baptist Church prays for more dead."

Sounds like they were working alongside him. Just give them a reason to arrest these people pls.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: ShiroTori on July 22, 2012, 08:05:14 am
The WBC has got to be the biggest pile of scum on Earth. Someone should go to one of their protests and start mercilessly killing them, see how those fuckers like it!

Praying for people to die, what a bunch of disgusting cunt-bags!

[size=2pt]I don't usually freak out like this, but I fucking hate the WBC![/size]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: nick. on July 22, 2012, 08:06:33 am
Quote
The Westboro blog yesterday had a short post called "Aurora, CO Judgement which started with the line "God Sent The Shooter to Aurora, CO. He killed 12 and injured 50+ Westboro Baptist Church prays for more dead."
What the fuck?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TsuKasa ´・ω・` on July 22, 2012, 08:51:29 am
Quote
The Westboro blog yesterday had a short post called "Aurora, CO Judgement which started with the line "God Sent The Shooter to Aurora, CO. He killed 12 and injured 50+ Westboro Baptist Church prays for more dead."

Sounds like they were working alongside him. Just give them a reason to arrest these people pls.

What is wrong with these people? I thought religious people were crazy but this is just cruel and stupid.

And I heard from the news he barricaded his home with bombs. Did they checked his background? Or did someone helped him cause I think one man couldn't have done this alone.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 22, 2012, 09:04:01 am
And I heard from the news he barricaded his home with bombs. Did they checked his background?
He is an atheist.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Duos.act on July 22, 2012, 09:37:53 am
This topic truly exposes who is really familiar with how the world works and who should just stick to talking about their electronic vidya games.

"LOL BAN GUNZ PROBLEM SOLVED STUPID AMERICA" is literally one of the most imbecilic, moronic and flat out retarded things I've ever read on the internet.  If you seriously think making something illegal means it won't happen, go up to anyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver and tell them that shit.  Hey, drunk driving is illegal so surely nobody dies by it!  Just like nobody buys drugs or commits rape or does anything else!  If the law says you can't do it then the bad stuff will go away! 

How fucking naive do you have to be to seriously think that the law has that much power?  Just because you can THEORETICALLY get punished for it (which is not even a guarantee itself) doesn't mean it never happened.

EDIT: Okay I should clarify.  There's no real reason for anyone not involved with the military to be able to get their hands on some souped up machine gun or rocket launcher or anything clearly designed for widespread destruction, but to suggest for even a moment that the right to own a gun should be taken is completely ignorant and uninformed.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: MDD on July 22, 2012, 09:45:14 am
We are talking about Westboro now so shut up not-as-awesome-black guy before I take your damn bike away from you. >:(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 10:05:18 am
There are enough nutty people with guns in the US, why haven't they been shot?
One of the only things holding a gun could have been useful for, and Americans are not even able to shoot all of them...

"LOL BAN GUNZ PROBLEM SOLVED STUPID AMERICA" is literally one of the most imbecilic, moronic and flat out retarded things I've ever read on the internet.  If you seriously think making something illegal means it won't happen, go up to anyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver and tell them that shit.  Hey, drunk driving is illegal so surely nobody dies by it!  Just like nobody buys drugs or commits rape or does anything else!  If the law says you can't do it then the bad stuff will go away! 

How fucking naive do you have to be to seriously think that the law has that much power?  Just because you can THEORETICALLY get punished for it (which is not even a guarantee itself) doesn't mean it never happened.
You sound stupid. Stop.

Nobody said that by signing a law, all the crimes and deaths will stop. The point is to limit them and enfore said laws, by putting time, money and man power.
If there are police men out of each night club and bars, checking for drunk people, and if you're caught drunk you get a $10.000 fine, lose your car and driving license, then there's be LESS people driving drunk.
If you get a $50.000 fine and 10 years of prison because you hold a firearm illegally, then you can be sure LESS people will have guns.

Your post is saying : "laws are useless, because having them won't make things stop. We shouldn't have any laws at all, let's abolish the Constitution, it's useless."

EDIT : guess how many people are caught driving drunk in Singapore ?
Quote
If you are caught drink driving for the first time, you will be fine up to $5000 or 6 months imprisonment and your license revoked. (With tougher laws on drink driving, you can expect the worst)

For second time offender, you will be fined up to $10,000 and imprisonment up to 1 year and your license revoked.

Subsequently, the court will enhanced punishment up to 3 times the penalty - $30,000 fine and up to 3 years imprisonment and your license revoked till god knows when.

Offenders causing death or serious injuries can also be caned up to 6 strokes.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 22, 2012, 10:15:23 am
From a german Tagesschau Artikel..including my translation, its only a part about a bigger article about the case which combines all so far gathered Informations

Quote
Waffeneinkauf per Internet - und alles legal

Seine Tat hat Holmes gezielt vorbereitet. Seit vier Monaten hatte er ein ganzes Waffen- und Sprengstoffarsenal in Waffengeschäften und im Internet zusammengekauft. Alles ganz legal. Denn in Colorado gelten noch laxere Waffengesetze als in anderen US-Bundesstaaten. Das ärgert Tom Mauser, den Vater eines Opfers des Amoklaufs an der Columbine Highschool. Nur 30 Kilometer von Aurora entfernt, hatten vor 13 Jahren zwei Schüler an der Columbine Highschool ein Blutbad angerichtet: Dass sich die Ereignisse in Colorado wiederholen, mache ihn traurig, sagt Mauser: "Andere Länder schauen uns an und sagen: Was ist bloß bei Euch los? Seid Ihr verrückt?"

Gun Shopping in Colorado via Internet, and everything legal

Holmes prepared his actions with a target. Since 4 Months he bought himself a whole collection of weapons and explosives in gunshops and the Internet. Everything completly legal. In Colorado there are even more lax weaponlaws as in other US States. This pisses off Tom Mauser, the father of one of the victims of the amok run at the Columbine Highschool. Only 30 kilometres far from Aurora, 13 years ago 2 students caused a bloodbath at that highschool. That history repeats itself makes him sad, Mauser says. "Other countries look at us and ask: What the hell is happening there? Are you crazy?"

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 22, 2012, 10:51:44 am
The point is someone that evil determined to kill a bunch of people will find a way to do it. 

Indeed. You people are excessively naive if you think any law can stop a pyscopath. If he couldn't buy a gun from a store, he'd buy it from a ratty looking guy in the slums of the city.

PS: Explosives are illegal as well and that didn't stop him from getting some, did it?

This topic truly exposes who is really familiar with how the world works and who should just stick to talking about their electronic vidya games.

"LOL BAN GUNZ PROBLEM SOLVED STUPID AMERICA" is literally one of the most imbecilic, moronic and flat out retarded things I've ever read on the internet.  If you seriously think making something illegal means it won't happen, go up to anyone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver and tell them that shit.  Hey, drunk driving is illegal so surely nobody dies by it!  Just like nobody buys drugs or commits rape or does anything else!  If the law says you can't do it then the bad stuff will go away! 

How fucking naive do you have to be to seriously think that the law has that much power?  Just because you can THEORETICALLY get punished for it (which is not even a guarantee itself) doesn't mean it never happened.

who the fuck talked about banning weapons? it's not the point: the point is fucking learn from the mistakes and TIGHTEN/change the regulations...how many Columbine's incident (because THIS is the same incident, and it underlines the gun control/the firearm lobby's power issue because nothing has changed, concretely, to prevent such incidents to happen) does a government need to react to a measurable social problem (which, btw, doesn't involve any mothafukking gangbangers in Compton or anywhere in the world, but rather You or the average Joe going nuts, in an almost gun free country!!)??

there are several laws against bank robbery and guess what

really? you really are going to make that parallel? ok so now guess what: there are laws against child molestation but "laws are useless: child molesters WILL molests kids anyway: let's let it slide legally!!"  how do you like that parallel?  :S that was a rather dumb statement, sorry


We have the right to bear arms because when there was no United States, other forces were violating people's basic rights. Being sympathetic to such a life style, the forefathers of the United States made sure that it was okay and possible for the people to bear arms for their own protection. The law is there for a reason and no amount of arguing is going to change one of the very justifiable rights of the constitution of the United States of America

Quote
The militia/frontiersman spirit derives from an early American dependence on arms to protect themselves from hostile Native Americans and foreign armies. Survival depended upon everyone being capable of carrying a weapon. In the 18th century, there was neither budget nor manpower nor government desire to maintain a full time army, believing they were a threat to the rights of the civilian populace. Therefore, the armed citizen-soldier carried the responsibility

oh yes: this is so actual in so many ways... dude, are you for real?? a law still applied to this day, which has absolutely NO connections to the origins of the very law, because guess what: civilization has changed since the 18th century...we are talking 200 year old fucking law here!! 

If a pencil can kill someone, why haven't we banned them? ANYTHING can kill people, there are many ways to make projectiles not equal to the speed but equal to the damage of a gun, there's ways to get around laws. It's not like banning guns will stop people from carrying or using them. Remember the alcohol ban from 1920-1933? How well that worked? People ended up running shady businesses where you could buy alcohol, and I doubt the majority of the profit went to the government.

dude come ooooon... ok let's forget about the country were we are ALL from and let's talk human beings to human beings (fuck frontiers, culture etc... please): answer this, please: WHY is everytime something terrible happens,  90% of the time it involves a firearm?? not a fucking pencil, not a spoon, not a lighter and some oil...but a gun??? BECAUSE it is the most deadly, easy, efficient in killing and affordable weapon you can get to fulfill your plan(s)!

in the end, IMO, we are (and i mean all of us, because if it's not gun it is something else anyway) just being manipulated by enormous Lobbies (and in the US, one of the biggest IS the Firearms lobby) and this is a nice sum up of the way of thinking of a lot of people right now, which i personally don't approve:

Quote
The worshipers of weapons also lay heavy stress on the psychological disabilities of the killer in a particular incident to create a sense of futility and resignation. Crazy people, they say, will do crazy things, and there is nothing we can do about this. Never mind that more rational laws would help keep guns out of the hands of people with a history of mental illness. Never mind that it's harder to get a license to drive a car than it is to own a gun. Never mind that even a Supreme Court ruling that gave an expansive reading of the Second Amendment nonetheless acknowledged the right of the people through their legislatures and Congress to enact sensible gun regulations.

Oh, yes, and then there is their trump card: We'd all be safer, says the gun lobby, if every last one of us owned a gun.

(source: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/21/4646358/viewpoints-gun-lobbys-gag-rule.html (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/21/4646358/viewpoints-gun-lobbys-gag-rule.html))

i'm speechless of the way some people think, as human beings...i mean it's the Cold War, the Race For Armament all over again but on a worse level!! O_O
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 11:01:44 am
We have the right to bear arms because when there was no United States, other forces were violating people's basic rights. Being sympathetic to such a life style, the forefathers of the United States made sure that it was okay and possible for the people to bear arms for their own protection. The law is there for a reason and no amount of arguing is going to change one of the very justifiable rights of the constitution of the United States of America

a law still applied to this day, which has absolutely NO connections to the origins of the very law

The law doesn't have any connection to itself? You must be drunk again.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 11:10:05 am
So you're saying you still live in the far west ? When you have a dispute, you have a gun fight to settle the case, and you hang people in the streets as punishment ?
God I know nothing of the US. :(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 11:16:30 am
Now you sound as dumb as Jean Bureau. Spare all of us from having to read any more of his horribly exaggerated and preposterous posts.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 22, 2012, 11:24:43 am
Rajaa, please, stop telling people they are dumb or stupid as a mean of some kind of argument, because you use it far too much and it doesn't help: we are having a discussion and exchanging thoughts here...the fact we agree or not is the actual reason why we are discussing: different opinions doesn't mean one is dumber than the other...

as for what i said about the law, i stand by it: yes, the law written for a 200+ year old situation does absolutely not apply right now, and if you fail to see it, then we have no reason to keep talking about it you and me, no problem! (funny thing is if the roles were reversed, you would have ended saying that i am dumb for not seeing it  ;))

EDIT: very nice to see that, as usual, you have an idea of some people on this forum and in your eyes, i'm the guy saying nothing relevant because "i am usually drunk when i post?"  wow who are you again? no need to be a douche bag bro
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on July 22, 2012, 11:35:30 am
what I meant by that is, like, certainly guns can kill people, but it's moreso a psychological murder as opposed to the gun itself. People just use them because they're accessible, but banning them will bring forth a large uproar and probably anger a lot of people who own guns for hunting(sport). It's a very hard to approach issue, and I think it comes down more to the licensing of guns as opposed to abolishing them/removing them completely, which is what Cyanide pretty much said(background checks, the like). I understand the conflicts 200+ years ago aren't around today, but blaming a shooting on the gun moreso than the man behind the gun sounds a bit odd. While the gun WAS used and the gun is partially to blame, the man is the guilty one. Granted I don't believe everyone NEEDS to own a gun, but they should have a right to should they be of sound mind.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 11:38:55 am
Rajaa, please, stop telling people they are dumb or stupid as a mean of some kind of argument,
Don't make dumb posts and your posts won't be called dumb. Plausibility, not argumentation. You can avoid making dumb posts by not posting while you're drunk.

Your last edit is false. You didn't read my mind correctly.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 11:42:11 am
Listen to the living farce Rajaa who has anger and cursing management issues, whose usual mindset is "I know what i am talking about all the time and you are wrong, shut up you are stupid and ignorant"

you spend more time insulting people out of the blue than actually being the knowledgeable person you try to communicate desperatly.

Doesn't take a lot of reading of "warning V2" to witness the extent of your genuine intelligence.  ::)

Quote
Rajaa, please, stop telling people they are dumb or stupid as a mean of some kind of argument, because you use it far too much and it doesn't help

READ THAT AGAIN. Maybe you'll get smarter for real one day.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 11:50:33 am
Spare all of us from having to read any more of his horribly exaggerated and preposterous posts.
That's the 2nd time you tell me I'm exaggerating, and while this is true (I'm obviously exaggerating on purpose), this also means that if you see it as an "exaggeration", it holds a part of truth.
- Men are the problem and the US has statistically more psychos than the rest of the civilized world.
- Said psychos settle down their problems by shooting at people, thanks to laws dating from ... what ? Gold rush ? :P

but banning them will bring forth a large uproar and probably anger a lot of people who own guns for hunting(sport). It's a very hard to approach issue, and I think it comes down more to the licensing of guns
That's how it is in France : to hold a gun, you need a license, you need to pass tests (both theoritical and practical), and the gun as well as you are registered by the government. I guess it's more or less the same in other European countries. It's not about flat out banning them, which is not feasible, but about regulating and controlling them.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on July 22, 2012, 11:52:43 am
Exactly. Glad we see eye to eye, after I explained what I meant in more clarity. Guess I should've done that first, though. Sorry. Either way, sounds like gun control is nice over there from what you're telling me.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 22, 2012, 11:54:04 am
Rajaa, please, stop telling people they are dumb or stupid as a mean of some kind of argument,
Don't make dumb posts and your posts won't be called dumb. Plausibility, not argumentation. You can avoid making dumb posts by not posting while you're drunk.

Your last edit is false. You didn't read my mind correctly.

thank you for proving my point by yourself! it's actually sad to witness someone actually not being adult enough to have a normal discussion without calling people names, because you truly believe i'm dumb by the way i post something on a forum?? dude, i don't even know how you can blindly judge people with absolutely no reasons whatsoever: i had opinions, i quoted stuff people said and responded to them (including yours), you obviously blew it out of proportion, on some kind of personal grudge that i wasn't aware of you had toward me...when did the mod status allow people to act completely out of place?

anyway, as long as you feel like a big man, it's all good (i'm still a huge fan of what you do as a creator, though ,i had to mention that)


EDIT: about the edited part of my previous post, i obviously didn't think the "drunk" statement was needed to be addressed, but in the end, it was so fucking out of place that i had to add something about it, indeed!
no i don't read mind: yes i just know (like most of the people that know how you post) that you usually have the tendency to make completely judgmental douchy statement on people you completely do not know.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 12:00:23 pm
That's the 2nd time you tell me I'm exaggerating, and while this is true (I'm obviously exaggerating on purpose), this also means that if you see it as an "exaggeration", it holds a part of truth.
- Men are the problem and the US has statistically more psychos than the rest of the civilized world.
- Said psychos settle down their problems by shooting at people, thanks to laws dating from ... what ? Gold rush ? :P
You forgot the part where I said "preposterous." While some of your posts are exaggerations of the truth, most of them are wildly spat out and wrong. For instance, the state of being that you claimed guns inflict upon people. That is wrong.

All psychopaths are not violent, so counting the number of psychopaths doesn't attribute to the amount of gun deaths. In fact, most violent psychopaths have ritualistic killings and don't go out in broad daylight to kill tons of people who don't contribute to their ritualistic killings. Many of them use methods of killing OTHER than guns.

Maybe if your European news channels focused more on European countries than on America, you would all know more about the nonsense that goes on in your own countries.

But you can't even understand the contention of a straight-forward question, so I don't expect you to get any of this.

That's how it is in France : to hold a gun, you need a license, you need to pass tests (both theoritical and practical), and the gun as well as you are registered by the government. I guess it's more or less the same in other European countries. It's not about flat out banning them, which is not feasible, but about regulating and controlling them.
That is how it is in America. Some states are just more lax and callous about who gets guns or not. It would really help your argument if you did research on each state instead of pointing your gun at all of America. Pun intended.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 22, 2012, 12:00:44 pm
Quote
I have never seen a gun for sale in one of the local WalMarts

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCmt4cf8YTs[/youtube]

 ::)

---
My uncle has been living in USA for 15 years. When i came to visit him in Florida, he showed me his gun (i think it was a glock, not sure)...
I was quite disappointed. He told me it was very simple to get it. He got it "to protect himself" from junkies and gangs he told me...

what the fuck is this??? So your telling me somebody could walk in there and simply buy a  shotgun and walk out? no papers signed, no nothing? fucking hell.....

Thats not a shotgun.


Now I find it kind of amusing all of you morally superior types who dont have a clue about gun ownership, types of weapons and states rights in the USA are calling for  vigilante justice re: WBC.

 I could take all of you a bit more seriously if you bothered to educate yourselves just a TINY bit about any of those things. 

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 22, 2012, 12:03:06 pm
so this is really officially turning into a US versus Europe thing now? really?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on July 22, 2012, 12:03:26 pm
B-but MBH....I know about it! : (. It's a really hard issue to talk about though because there's so much to it, which is why I am of the mind that background checks etc. COULD be performed to prevent SOME stuff like this(not all, considering the nature of...well.....crime, especially with how suddenly people can snap and do stuff like this).
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 22, 2012, 12:08:50 pm
but banning them will bring forth a large uproar and probably anger a lot of people who own guns for hunting(sport). It's a very hard to approach issue, and I think it comes down more to the licensing of guns
That's how it is in France : to hold a gun, you need a license, you need to pass tests (both theoritical and practical), and the gun as well as you are registered by the government. I guess it's more or less the same in other European countries. It's not about flat out banning them, which is not feasible, but about regulating and controlling them.

While I am all for tightening regulations to include background checks and psychological evaluation, this won't work as well for the US as it works for Europe, nor will stop wackos like this one.
Just like Brazil, US landmass is too big, and smuggling weapons or other illegal goods through the border is easy, so it wouldn't be too difficult for a nutjob to acquire an illegal weapon.

We have a very strict weapon regulations here, and I am working for over an year with paperwork so I can legally own a .44 special carbine, and a .44 special revolver.
Guess what, I could have them already for 20% of the price I will pay for the legalized ones. All I would have to do is to talk to a few people who contacted me, many of them with honest jobs and backgrounds, to acquire said weapons quickly.

Just like here, it would be just cheaper and easier for the wacko to get an illegal gun and commit their crime.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on July 22, 2012, 12:10:42 pm
Yeah. As it would seem it's a really hard issue to approach but it makes me wonder if it's an issue itself as opposed to the people behind the weapons. It really goes deep.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 12:10:56 pm
1- For instance, the state of being that you claimed guns inflict upon people. That is wrong.
2-All psychopaths are not violent, so counting the number of psychopaths doesn't attribute to the amount of gun deaths. In fact, most violent psychopaths have ritualistic killings and don't go out in broad daylight to kill tons of people who don't contribute to their ritualistic killings. Many of them use methods of killing OTHER than guns.
3-Maybe if your European news channels focused more on European countries than on America, you would all know more about the nonsense that goes on in your own countries.
4-But you can't even understand the contention of a straight-forward question, so I don't expect you to get any of this.
1- Please find the post where I said having a gun makes people crazy. I said people who are crazy shouldn't have guns. I said guns should be controlled I said people shouldn't have access to guns so easily, so that if someone goes crazy he just can't go to Walmart or his local gun shop to buy one. I know people who have guns for hunting, that never has been a problem for me.

2- Psychos is just a term I used for "these bastards who shoot other people". I'm not including all psychopaths. Maybe we can come back to the "crime rate by firearms stattistics".

3- Tell me more about the non-sense going on in our countries. :)
Don't worry, we don't even focus so much on this shooting, it's like "Trivia : grandmother Michelle 86 died yesterday in her house, shooting in Colorado 12 killed regular stuff there, a homeless stole a banana in a shop".

4- What straight-forward question ? What are you talking about ? Be clear when you say people are wrong.

@ Bia : thanks for writing a post that makes sense, it's been missing in these last few pages...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: nick. on July 22, 2012, 12:11:36 pm
so this is really officially turning into a US versus Europe thing now? really?
Djoulz, just stop posting here.. for your benefit.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 22, 2012, 12:18:16 pm
so this is really officially turning into a US versus Europe thing now? really?
Djoulz, just stop posting here.. for your benefit.

?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 22, 2012, 12:19:29 pm
What sounds better to prevent cases like this one?

Selling guns in Supermarkets /Internet

Banning guns from Supermarkets and the Internet?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 12:26:54 pm
1- For instance, the state of being that you claimed guns inflict upon people. That is wrong.
2-All psychopaths are not violent, so counting the number of psychopaths doesn't attribute to the amount of gun deaths. In fact, most violent psychopaths have ritualistic killings and don't go out in broad daylight to kill tons of people who don't contribute to their ritualistic killings. Many of them use methods of killing OTHER than guns.
3-Maybe if your European news channels focused more on European countries than on America, you would all know more about the nonsense that goes on in your own countries.
4-But you can't even understand the contention of a straight-forward question, so I don't expect you to get any of this.
1- Please find the post where I said having a gun makes people crazy. I said people who are crazy shouldn't have guns. I said guns should be controlled I said people shouldn't have access to guns so easily, so that if someone goes crazy he just can't go to Walmart or his local gun shop to buy one. I know people who have guns for hunting, that never has been a problem for me.

2- Psychos is just a term I used for "these bastards who shoot other people". I'm not including all psychopaths. Maybe we can come back to the "crime rate by firearms stattistics".

3- Tell me more about the non-sense going on in our countries. :)
Don't worry, we don't even focus so much on this shooting, it's like "Trivia : grandmother Michelle 86 died yesterday in her house, shooting in Colorado 12 killed regular stuff there, a homeless stole a banana in a shop".

4- What straight-forward question ? What are you talking about ? Be clear when you say people are wrong.

@ Bia : thanks for writing a post that makes sense, it's been missing in these last few pages...
I thought you were Jean burea. Your avatar appeared to be his or something similiar and I didn't bother looking at your name. That's what happens when you intentionally impersonate people's avatars in a topic that has many arguments going on simultaneously. :S
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 22, 2012, 12:28:39 pm
What sounds better to prevent cases like this one?

Selling guns in Supermarkets /Internet

Banning guns from Supermarkets and the Internet?


Neither.

Banning guns or making them harder to acquire would just means that he would likely have less guns with him, but he would still be able to get an illegal assault rifle or revolver or shotgun and commit that madness.

For around 700 USD, I can get myself an illegal AR-15 rifle with full auto here...

For reference: In 1999, one wacko took an UZI to a movie theater in Brazil and opened fire. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/505065.stm)
A civilian can't get an UZI legally here, nor can get guns at a supermarket or the internet.
That didn't stop that guy.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 12:30:18 pm
:ninja:
I'm genius!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: blackstar on July 22, 2012, 12:32:26 pm
You must not get out much if that's the dumbest thing you've ever heard. You must also not know much about the American Revolution and just why that amendment was put into place.

Yes I know about the American revolution. But in modern day peace times it isn't a smart amendment to have.

Yes, we, the Americans, as a hive-mind, will never ever give up our guns. Resistence is futile. Your life, as it has been - is over. From this time forward, you will service - us.  :borg:

I mean as to say if a gun owning American street gave up their guns and destroyed them all it would take is one person on the street to keep his shotgun and be like "This street is mine gunless bitches!!" for the rest of the street to live in fear of that maniac who kept his shotgun. So that's why taking guns away from Americans will never work because all it would take is for some to hide and keep them for all hell to break loose as they'll fight for their right.

Also I think the maniac who killed all those people in the screening should simply be put to death no questions asked because to me a human that has made the consious decision to kill an innocent person is no longer human and so should be stripped of their human rights

Yeah, fuck a free and just trial!!!

I stand by this  :twisted:

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 22, 2012, 01:57:28 pm
I just realized that people were talking about me a few pages back without me knowing, how sweet.

On a more serious note, for each gunshooting, mass-murdering murder you can name in the United States, I can find at least 30 or more gun-owning people who are responsible and will not go on a rampage.

Do not call all of America cowboy-crazy because of a rampaging murder, because all nations have their fair-share of them.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 22, 2012, 02:06:22 pm
On a more serious note, for each gunshooting, mass-murdering murder you can name in the United States, I can find at least 30 or more gun-owning people who are responsible and will not go on a rampage.
And none of them actually need a gun in the street, at the very least not a machine gun with hundreds of clips.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 22, 2012, 02:08:57 pm
On a more serious note, for each gunshooting, mass-murdering murder you can name in the United States, I can find at least 30 or more gun-owning people who are responsible and will not go on a rampage.
And none of them actually need a gun in the street, at the very least not a machine gun with hundreds of clips.

That machine gun piece I can agree to at least.

But I wouldn't say none of them, for such words are easily proved false.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: K.O.D on July 22, 2012, 02:23:18 pm
make the bullets expensive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 22, 2012, 03:12:00 pm
Rajaa, please, stop telling people they are dumb or stupid as a mean of some kind of argument,
Don't make dumb posts and your posts won't be called dumb. Plausibility, not argumentation. You can avoid making dumb posts by not posting while you're drunk.

Your last edit is false. You didn't read my mind correctly.
stop telling people they are dumb when you are arguing with them, its a terrible way to go about anything, specially arguments.
He is just telling you that the law has no connection to the current reality because the need ot have a militia at all times to ensure the protection of the land from invaders and replace the police in times of need is no longer a reality.

:::::::::::::
There is absolutely no reason anyone needs to stock up on military grade weapons, I dont even mean a background check, but how do you not check that a person already has 3 guns on his name when buying a fourth? Had any laws about gun control been in place, more of those persons would be alive, no matter how much americans might be culturally blind to that. It is neither normal or even logic to have every citizen be able to hold a machine gun with a high leverage clip size, all that means is that at any time everyone could pull out a machine gun and start spraying bullets everywhere.

this situation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGFZDhCjvj0
would just increase and happen more, the thiefs would have gone in there with uzis, everyone would have a piece, a shootout would ensue, bystanders would be killed, more death, mode blood. Hey maybe one of them had some nice grenade launchers
http://www.autoweapons.com/products/destructivedevices.html they could even blow the bodies afterwards.

Next im going to be told that you need access to grenade launchers because criminals also have access to them by illegal means.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 03:28:51 pm
stop telling people they are dumb when you are arguing with them
I'd rather not.

He is just telling you that the law has no connection to the current reality because the need ot have a militia at all times to ensure the protection of the land from invaders and replace the police in times of need is no longer a reality.
It's not necessarily necessary to stop invasions by foreign militias, but it's useful to stop domestic criminals who may or may not have guns obtained legally or illegally. Police officers can't be everywhere. If someone is in my house trying to rape me, a 911 call is not gonna save my life if it is in imminent danger.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 22, 2012, 03:39:41 pm
If someone is in my house trying to rape me, a 911 call is not gonna save my life if it is in imminent danger.
Clearly you need a machine gun to fend him off.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 22, 2012, 03:41:59 pm
i think rajaa is on to me...[size=1pt]or should i say i'll be in rajaa.[/size]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 03:43:01 pm
If someone is in my house trying to rape me, a 911 call is not gonna save my life if it is in imminent danger.
Clearly you need a machine gun to fend him off.
I've never advocated that a machine gun is reasonable. You're yet another person who is drastically twisting the words of people's posts with ridiculous, misguided sarcasm.

i think rajaa is on to me...
:stare:

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 22, 2012, 03:45:48 pm
Quote
If someone is in my house trying to rape me, a 911 call is not gonna save my life if it is in imminent danger.

Where do you guys get all these ideas ?

I mean yeah it's possible (it always is) but the probability is such that if i follow the logic, you might as well stop driving considering the probability of dying in a car accident, which is by the way, probably higher than getting rapped/attacked by a person breaking into your house.
 
In the worst case if you are this concerned about defense, get a tazer or baseball bat..

I had a couple of people trying to break into the house when i was very young (they tried to climb the balcony... idiots lol) when i think about it again, it would definitly make want to increase my ability to defend myself.
But "getting a gun" would never be a reflex. It's not something that would come to my mind at all.

edit: maybe you live in a VERY dangerous area... I dunno   o_O
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 22, 2012, 03:47:26 pm
guns shouldn't be outlawed, restricting and picking the right people who they'll give permission to carry it would be a better solution,

even if a person is in the military what if he/she gone berserk and shoot random people? guns don't kill people , idiot people who in the first place doesn't deserve to own a gun kills people.

the question is how did he easily got this weapons and who the fuck would allow him to buy one.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 22, 2012, 03:52:37 pm
Clearly you need a machine gun to fend him off.
I've never advocated that a machine gun is reasonable. You're yet another person who is drastically twisting the words of people's posts with ridiculous, misguided sarcasm.
You're yet another person who spits out a lot of shit, insults everyone who disagrees, who thinks that those situations would happen a lot more often than they really do, and who thinks the only solution in such a situation is a gun. Shut the fuck up.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 03:58:24 pm
who thinks that those situations would happen a lot more often than they really do, and who thinks the only solution in such a situation is a gun.
They happen more often than psychos shooting up movie theaters.

It's okay to be angry. I have that effect on people.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises. "i am the Joker"
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 22, 2012, 04:04:12 pm
The Psycho yelled "I am the Joker" when he was caught.


goddamn.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 22, 2012, 04:08:32 pm
man if he dressed as one i'll be impress.

okay somebody shoot me now.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 22, 2012, 04:31:35 pm
I cant...guns are banned here!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: K.O.D on July 22, 2012, 04:35:51 pm
but if you REALLY wanted to kill chineseletters you could buy one illegally from the dude down the street
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Seadragon77 on July 22, 2012, 04:52:49 pm
Those crackpots from Westboro are still out there? Man, you'd think (and wish) that they would just go away.

But, I don't want them to be dead yet. Oh no no no. I think it's our duty as people who aren't blinded by their idiotcy to use them as punching bags, plain and simple. They act like idiots, so they deserve to be treated as such.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 06:32:12 pm
Police officers can't be everywhere. If someone is in my house trying to rape me, a 911 call is not gonna save my life if it is in imminent danger.
Neither is the gun in your drawer when they're going to rape you in the living room by surprise.
However, it might become dangerous when your 15 yo boy finds it and decides to show your 6 yo daughter how fun it is to use it.

By that logic, should I buy a rocket launcher for each time I go in a bank because the vans full of bills to refill the ATMs are sometimes attacked by robbers who have rocket launchers ? You know, just in case...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 22, 2012, 06:53:19 pm
man if he dressed as one i'll be impress.

okay somebody shoot me now.

I can shot you, if you lknow what I mean ;)

and lol@everybody arguing with raja. when he is not insulting people, he is arguing semantics or bringing up ridiculous paraboles and whenever someone does the same to him he just insults more.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 06:59:16 pm
Neither is the gun in your drawer when they're going to rape you in the living room by surprise.
However, it might become dangerous when your 15 yo boy finds it and decides to show your 6 yo daughter how fun it is to use it.

By that logic, should I buy a rocket launcher for each time I go in a bank because the vans full of bills to refill the ATMs are sometimes attacked by robbers who have rocket launchers ? You know, just in case...

Anything might become dangerous when a 16-year-old thinks it's a good idea to teach a 5-year-old how to use any kind of deadly weapon.

And your rocket launcher examples are becoming increasingly dumber. I don't even know why you are bringing those up. Those are a different class of weapons and aren't casually sold legally.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 22, 2012, 07:35:41 pm
Oh really? I just showed a link where you could acquire grenade launchers.

And the guy at the shootout had a military grade rifle, his example while hyperbole still holds, you dont need that much firepower for protection and the idea that its needed somehow just gives way to escalation.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 07:44:58 pm
Those are a different class of weapons and aren't casually sold legally.
Hey, guess what, you finally got our comparison/hyperbole : knives and guns are from different classes of weapons, and the latter shouldn't casually be sold legally.

It falls down to where you dress the line.

In most countries :
OK : knife.
License : hunting gun
Not OK : the rest

In the US (some States at least) :
OK : knife, hunting gun, 9mm, rifle
License : haha what (actually, I don't know, but recent events show poor control)
Not OK : rocket launcher and tank

Why would a country (not generalizing here) think it's fine to have weapons for self-defense, while statistics speak against it, when all the other countries in the "civilized world" say it's not fine (and statistics speak for them) ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 07:50:56 pm
Hey, guess what, you finally got our comparison/hyperbole : knives and guns are from different classes of weapons, and the latter shouldn't casually be sold legally.
Any genius knows that there are different classes of weapons, I didn't just stumble upon that information, as much as you'd like to think I did. The argument of knives is that if someone wants to be a random killer, they have other weapons at their disposal besides guns, legal or illegal.

This has gotten repetitive.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 22, 2012, 08:07:30 pm
If it doesn't matter that guns get banned because even illegal weapons can be acquired, then it doesn't matter that rocket launchers are banned because illegal weapons can still be acquired. If you say rocket launchers are bad, then the same logic can be applied for guns. The line you draw between guns and rocket launchers is completely arbitrary, and the same thing can always be said about guns and knives.
And don't even try to say that banned rocket launchers would be harder to get than banned guns, because by that logic, banned guns would be harder to get than banned knives, so we just have to ban knives to get rid of guns.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 22, 2012, 09:16:27 pm
oh yes: this is so actual in so many ways... dude, are you for real?? a law still applied to this day, which has absolutely NO connections to the origins of the very law, because guess what: civilization has changed since the 18th century...we are talking 200 year old fucking law here!! 
But it's what the founding fathers wanted! That's why we still have slaves and only white males can vote!

hey maybe if I make the text bigger someone will address this
Hey maybe one of them had some nice grenade launchers
http://www.autoweapons.com/products/destructivedevices.html they could even blow the bodies afterwards.
While you're at it you can address why the fuck anyone would need a fully automatic weapon with a 100 round clip. Because while you guys may well support the banning of those weapons, you sure haven't said it, so...

stop telling people they are dumb when you are arguing with them
I'd rather not.
Are you fucking serious? You can't have a debate with people without needlessly throwing insults at them?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 22, 2012, 09:37:37 pm
Are you fucking serious?
Pretty much.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 22, 2012, 09:39:10 pm
But it's what the founding fathers wanted! That's why we still have slaves and only white males can vote!
I am just realizing that this is the same situation and same argument as with people who insist on following the Bible to the letter.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 22, 2012, 09:41:30 pm
Pretty much.
...

I am just realizing that this is the same situation and same argument as with people who insist on following the Bible to the letter.
Not really, since the Bible was never meant to be read as being a 100% factual account of how things happened.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 22, 2012, 09:43:08 pm
jmorphman is the devil :twisted:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 22, 2012, 09:43:27 pm

Not really, since the Bible was never meant to be read as being a 100% factual account of how things happened.
Yeah, I just mean that what you said is the same thing as what we say to people who do take it literally and think it still applies. As you say, it doesn't.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 22, 2012, 09:47:30 pm
I am just realizing that this is the same situation and same argument as with people who insist on following the Bible to the letter.
They come from the same country. Do you think they're the same people !? ;D
[/jk]

Quote
While you're at it you can address why the fuck anyone would need a fully automatic weapon with a 100 round clip
Because when you're allowed to buy this type of stuff, you'll go possibly for the biggest possible. If you have the money to buy a huge car, then you may want to buy the biggest possible, just to show off or compensate for something else. I guess it's the same for a gun. These type of people, if they could buy a tank or a biological weapon, would probably do so.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Chronan on July 22, 2012, 11:32:00 pm
Guns are bad, m'kay.

Not really, since the Bible was never meant to be read as being a 100% factual account of how things happened.
According to whom? The interpenetration of the bible literal or figurative has been different for every single branch of Christianity, and even the existing branches have been shifting their interpretations over time to consider which parts are meant to be taken more literally or figuratively.

Some of the old forms of Christianity actually died out because they took various passages from the bible too literally. Due to their interpretations they must have decided that everyone needs to own an assault weapon. They all killed each other with in a week because that what people with guns do and not what normal people do. I read the bible and that wasn't a snake in the Garden of Eden, it was Adam's penis, and it was holding a gun. The gun(or penis) made Eve do a bad things, gun = devil, Americans = evil! Americans includes all the western hemisphere because American should not be used to describe the USA alone, I am saying this because I want 3 of the most annoying pop-up arguments to be associated to this cinematic tragedy(not Highlander 2). Gun laws, Religion is bad, and American != USA. Someone get Orochi Gill in here so we can have someone hate on him too! :)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 12:59:58 am
According to whom?
According to most mainstream Christian sects up until the 18th century.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 01:10:52 am
Oh really? I just showed a link where you could acquire grenade launchers.

That website is NFA rules, you can't just add a grenade launcher to your cart and put it on paypal.


These type of people, if they could buy a tank or a biological weapon, would probably do so.

 Oh baby I'm gonna get me a tank, maybe 3!  (http://www.stvgroup.cz/en/PRODUCTS-SERVICES/Sale-military-vehicles-for-collectors)

:bow:

Edit!  Oh cool a howitzer! 

Quote
There is not much detailed information about this weapon available. Its service in armies was secret due to possibility of fire atomic ammunition.

Now how much to ship it from Russia?  Dang the USA doesnt sell cool howitzers that fire atomic ammunition.

Edit again:

http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/Tanks_Trucks_Jeeps_for_sale_page.html

Check out that rocket tank for sale in the UK.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: blackstar on July 23, 2012, 01:31:19 am
My God...religion has now been brought into a discussion about gun control...may God have mercy on our souls...  :o
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 23, 2012, 03:03:52 am
Rajaa: If your contribution is going to be "You're dumb" you may as well not post. You have not yet rebutted any point at all other than calling it invalid when it's not. Making up a hyperbolic and hypothetical situation is completely reasonable to explain a point.

Going to the constitution which you love apparently. Does america still have a citizens militia? Do laws written for a militia that no longer exists really still apply. When you factor in that the people who wrote the law did so with single shot muzzle loaded weapons in mind is it really still valid or sensible?

The thing is, you can abolish that phrase and write it into MODERN law and make all aspects of owning a gun more controlled.

And your example of a gun protecting you when you're going to be raped in your home. Yeah, sure, absolutely. Please explain how the gun helps when you're watching TV and the nutter sneaks up behind you and knocks you out? It doesn't, it can't, and your example is exactly as dumb as you've been calling everyone elses.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 03:47:15 am
It's not easy getting rid of weapons once they're out there, because the more law-abiding citizens will be at a disadvantage if they don't have weapons while the rogues still do. That's an entirely valid point.

But people who say and actually believe that guns contribute anything to society besides generating their own demand are, sorry, just being idiots.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/hurt.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 23, 2012, 03:55:54 am
Cyanide is right. Not only that but a gun can potentially cause the situation to escalate into something that could have been avoided. The police themselves will tell you that you are potentially putting yourself and family at risk by taking a aggressive stand on that level.

there are other ways to protect your home. I have two thick doors and a door sensor. So if somebody enters through the first door at "ridiculous o clock" I'll hear the sensor go off. and even if I don't, then both of my beautiful rottweilers will and the fucker that entered will be dog food. If he comes through the window he is dog food....if he comes down the fucking chimney like santa claus he is dog food. Its even worse that both my dogs are anti-social.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DMK on July 23, 2012, 04:08:18 am
So did those Westbroro pieces of shit show up or did they puss out?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 23, 2012, 04:13:43 am
Golly geez, this is why I hate gun debates on Internet forums.

People are being idiots all around, myself included.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 04:21:03 am
This topic is great. no sarcasm.

Everytime Rajaa has simply no counter argument, he either splits a hair, or he judges the metaphore/example itself instead of the idea behind, and generally speaking he simply tries to invalidate your argument without bothering giving something relevant in return to backup why your are apparently wrong.

he simply tells you, you are wrong. The guy has a bunch of members including moderators all converging on the same idea, that he basically is here to say "i am right, shut up, you're stupid"

and he still is not mature enough to think maybe he is not always right. And the cherry on top of the cake, he calls you name out of the blue lol.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 04:22:19 am
if he comes down the fucking chimney like santa claus he is dog food.
But what if it actually is Santa?!?!?!?!?! D:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 23, 2012, 04:23:02 am
the fact that some people think rajaa's only saying "I AM RIGHT. YOU'RE NOT. SHUT UP. IDIOT" shows how much attention they're actually paying to his posts
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 04:25:51 am
the fact that some people think rajaa's only saying "I AM RIGHT. YOU'RE NOT. SHUT UP. IDIOT" shows how much attention they're actually paying to his posts
Honestly, they shouldn't have to pay attention to the rest of his posts after he makes statements like that.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 23, 2012, 04:27:35 am
if he comes down the fucking chimney like santa claus he is dog food.
But what if it actually is Santa?!?!?!?!?! D:

then tough shit santa lol.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 23, 2012, 04:32:45 am
if he comes down the fucking chimney like santa claus he is dog food.
But what if it actually is Santa?!?!?!?!?! D:

then tough shit santa lol.

What happens it is SWAT Santa?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 23, 2012, 04:37:57 am
@DNZRX768

You should be arrested for killing that joke. That joke did nothing to deserve this. :bigcry:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 23, 2012, 04:53:46 am
What can I say, I make killing jokes.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Wolfenkrieg on July 23, 2012, 05:42:24 am
I really want to add a piece of my own opinion to this situation and not derail the topic about some Santa ....

As you can see, owning a gun or not owning a gun do not really factor that much in killings in general. Yes, it is reported more(in the US), and the guns who are used for crimes are easier to get because it is legal.

Gun crimes are higher because of the literal argument of the availability resources are not always true. The main factor is THE CULTURE.
Comparing to Canada - U.S., our gun crimes are way lower. The thing is (no need to bring in racism but based on true facts), what caused the gun crimes the most is the immigrants that are going into our country that are mostly in Jamaican descent, and due to their violent culture, has caused more gun killings because they also brought in their violent behavior inside Canada (causing it to spread to society and whatnot). Though, it is probably easy to get a gun in Canada just for hunting (though the government are trying to stop people from owning guns in general because of gang violence(when the guns are illegally imported and not from Canada), most murders that are being committed are actually not the use of guns. Rather it is... mostly psycho murders that involves human beating, knives, and anything else besides the usage of Guns.

To process with this argument, the argumentativeness of the usage of guns being the main factor of murder and violence are not entirely true, but mostly the people and the behaviour that is indoctrinated within them is the common factor of this situation.

In the end... I don't think comparing Psychotic People and Serial Killers are relevant to gun murders when most of these people usually use something that does not really involves guns. Human mutilation through knives/machetes and what not engrossing measures of acts that I can't comprehend.

Though... if things are banned in the US, I think they can still get their hands dirty by importing stuff secretly from somewhere else. PEOPLE will always find a way, if they search hard enough lol.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 06:01:25 am
LoL I really don't see a canadian as any type of threats lol. I have always in mind "the canadians are guys so chilled that they don't lock the door of their house because no one is gonna rob them"
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Wolfenkrieg on July 23, 2012, 06:08:39 am
Lol, depends where you're living. Mainly it happens in the.. ghettos >_>
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 09:50:48 am
Rajaa: If your contribution is going to be "You're dumb" you may as well not post. You have not yet rebutted any point at all other than calling it invalid when it's not. Making up a hyperbolic and hypothetical situation is completely reasonable to explain a point.
Actually, no. When people start going overboard with exaggerations it becomes dumb, obnoxious, and illegitimate. And when people place text in my post and argue against the text that I didn't type, I am going to argue semantics with them until they get angry, like Byakko. And when people make up bogus percentages and try to pass them off as facts to support their already weak argument, I am going to tell them that they are wrong, like Maveriik. When someone makes a post that doesn't make any sense or contradicts itself, I am going to question the meaning of their post, like Djoulz. When someone seems to have a faint grasp of the English language and can't understand basic, linear questions, I am going to question them on the meaning of their entire post, like Jean Buereau.

Don't come in and point fingers without knowing why you're pointing fingers besides the fact that everyone I argued with shares your position on firearms.

the fact that some people think rajaa's only saying "I AM RIGHT. YOU'RE NOT. SHUT UP. IDIOT" shows how much attention they're actually paying to his posts
Honestly, they shouldn't have to pay attention to the rest of his posts after he makes statements like that.
After I make statements like what? If you feel like I jumped you in the warnings thread, that is fine, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt (I'm not really sorry. Sorry), but that's no reason to try to attack me on the next opportunity you get. Perhaps we should all stop responding to you for editing people's profiles and abusing your power, that's worse than anything I have posted here and no sort of persecution against me is going to change that, buddy. Get over it.

Everytime Rajaa has simply no counter argument, he either splits a hair, or he judges the metaphore/example itself instead of the idea behind, and generally speaking he simply tries to invalidate your argument without bothering giving something relevant in return to backup why your are apparently wrong.
Use comprehensible, reasonable examples and get a better grasp on English, then come to me and we'll talk about ideas. All of your posts appear stupid to me.

he simply tells you, you are wrong. The guy has a bunch of members including moderators all converging on the same idea, that he basically is here to say "i am right, shut up, you're stupid"
.
Actually, I only tell people who are wrong when they are wrong. Like Maverik and his wrong percentage. You are still having problems reading posts if you still do not understand that.

and he still is not mature enough to think maybe he is not always right. And the cherry on top of the cake, he calls you name out of the blue lol.
I know when I am not right and I will openly admit it when it is so. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case here.

I would love to see you quote some posts of mine from this thread in which I claim that I am completely right and someone else is completely wrong and stupid. You won't be able to do that.

But then again, I don't expect you to understand that because of your inability to grasp simple questions.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 10:18:30 am
the fact that some people think rajaa's only saying "I AM RIGHT. YOU'RE NOT. SHUT UP. IDIOT" shows how much attention they're actually paying to his posts
I've checked up the last 8 pages and he's said nothing but "other people do this" and "other people do other things" without ever addressing the things actually discussed. Nothing of what he said is a defense for anything.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 10:21:02 am
That's a statement not backed up by any quotes or anything. If you've read the last 8 pages, show your work, Mr. "Fuck You Shut the Fuck Up."

My posts don't read like that at all. Sorry. Try again.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: -Red- on July 23, 2012, 10:21:54 am
this thread would be easier to read if people stopped overusing the word "hyperbole" everywhere.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 10:25:03 am
If you feel like I jumped you in the warnings thread, that is fine, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt (I'm not really sorry. Sorry)
What? No. Don't be ridiculous. I'm just saying you're being a douche for no reason.

You really need to be more tactful if you want to have a serious discussion about stuff like this.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 23, 2012, 10:30:42 am
Now you sound as dumb as Jean Bureau. Spare all of us from having to read any more of his horribly exaggerated and preposterous posts.
There's an example. The post just before that is pretty terrible too. You basically claimed that the right to bear arms was TOTALLY justified in this day and age despite the fact other people were talking about the creation of that law and the spirit in which it was made at the time. This is also with the fact you've generalised about people and claimed that
A: they must be drunk (as if this actually matters if their typing is legible)
B: You didn't pay any attention to who someone was and replied as if they were someone you didn't like (Jean) without really analysing the contents of their post.

I'm sure Byakko will provide a few more examples.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Wolfenkrieg on July 23, 2012, 10:34:00 am
I don't think the usage of ad hominems  are going to get anyone anywhere with this argument. Generally insulting each other won't do a thing since it's not addressing the issue at hand but rather going offtopic and derailing it at the same time. Therefore, I won't expect a genuine neutral debate anytime soon if this topic keeps on going on like this.

Edit:
By the way, I do notice some flaws with other people's argument, but no one actually provided an actual link or literal proof without text to show that their post are proper and/or supported by proper evidence rather than just your own opinion.

As I say, there is a 50/50 and it is another grey area topic.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 10:35:20 am
That's a statement not backed up by any quotes or anything. If you've read the last 8 pages, show your work, Mr. "Fuck You Shut the Fuck Up."

My posts don't read like that at all. Sorry. Try again.
Okay.
Spoiler: Quotes (click to see content)
All of this is about other people than the ones discussed here, about other events than the ones discussed here. Other ways to obtain illegal weapons, other ways to kill people, other uses of those weapons, other dangerous tools with other regulations.
Do you need stats with that ? Because I can provide some, here's what they say :
Spoiler: Stats (click to see content)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 10:37:42 am
He can't help being himself.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: JeanBureau † on Yesterday at 09:21:03 pm

    Everytime Rajaa has simply no counter argument, he either splits a hair, or he judges the metaphore/example itself instead of the idea behind, and generally speaking he simply tries to invalidate your argument without bothering giving something relevant in return to backup why your are apparently wrong.

Use comprehensible, reasonable examples and get a better grasp on English, then come to me and we'll talk about ideas. All of your posts appear stupid to me.

There we are. SAME strategy.
You refuse to absorb the substance/content of a message. So the only thing left you can talk about (and thus criticise) is the form. Trying miserably to criticise the comprehensibility of what I said, to hide the fact that you have NOTHING concrete to bring to the table.
Besides, you have completly understood my post. You just pretend. Everybody got it, you too, and we are all witnessing your current idiocy.

You're not always right about what you say, or how you behave. Though shit. Deal with it and grow up.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Wolfenkrieg on July 23, 2012, 10:40:07 am
@Jean
Though.. if you want to deduct his argument and say he doesn't, use the 3 criterion of proper argumentation =P.
Relevancy/Sufficiency/Acceptability(Most of you guys violate this  >:()
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 10:42:06 am
Edit:
By the way, I do notice some flaws with other people's argument, but no one actually provided an actual link or literal proof without text to show that their post are proper and/or supported by proper evidence rather than just your own opinion.

Statistics were provided by Cyanide -
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 10:44:57 am
By the way, I do notice some flaws with other people's argument, but no one actually provided an actual link or literal proof without text to show that their post are proper and/or supported by proper evidence rather than just your own opinion.

As I say, there is a 50/50 and it is another grey area topic.
I didn't realized we had to write out our posts in MLA style.

And it's not like your posts had a single citation in them either. ::)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 23, 2012, 10:48:15 am
@ SXVector : English is not our native language, deal with it.  :dealwithit:

If the reason for holding a gun is "bad guys have guns, I must have a gun to defend myself, just in case" (which, by the way, almost never works because you won't have the time to use said gun, or you won't have it on you when necessary, aka it will only be useful in some very rare instances), then I'm still waiting for my counter argument to why, in this case, is it unreasonable to buy a rocket launcher and an AK47 to defend myself, because some bad guys have one too ?

As Byakko said :
If it doesn't matter that guns get banned because even illegal weapons can be acquired, then it doesn't matter that rocket launchers are banned because illegal weapons can still be acquired. If you say rocket launchers are bad, then the same logic can be applied for guns. The line you draw between guns and rocket launchers is completely arbitrary, and the same thing can always be said about guns and knives.
And don't even try to say that banned rocket launchers would be harder to get than banned guns, because by that logic, banned guns would be harder to get than banned knives, so we just have to ban knives to get rid of guns.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 23, 2012, 10:49:34 am
Old stats sure, but i doubt they've actually improved. Here are some stats from a blogger i read occasionally who has started the same debate people are having here.

Quote
Twenty-nine police officers died in the line of duty in New Zealand in the nearly 12 decades between 1890 and 2009. In America last year, 166 police officers were killed.
Quote
A news report from October 2008 put the number of people shot by police in New Zealand between 1941 and 2008 to be 22. That amounts to one every three years. There were 387 "justifiable homicides" committed by American law enforcement in 2010. Some, a lot of people would argue, more justifiable than others.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-12/us/us_law-enforcement-deaths-2011_1_death-toll-police-officer-craig-floyd?_s=PM:US
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/687104/22-people-shot-by-police-on-record
http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-force/142-dead-and-rising/national-data-on-shootings-by-police-not-collected-134256308.html

Yes we have a tiny population which helps. But still, 1 every 3, i doubt even if we increased our population to USA would we achieve 387.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 10:53:50 am

Going to the constitution which you love apparently. Does america still have a citizens militia?

No, "America"  does not have a citizens militia. individual STATES however, do have constitutional militias made up of it's citizens for the purpose of  preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitutions of the United States and of their state.  I dont know if EVERY state has them, but most do.  There are also a few fringe para-military groups out there calling themselves militia...  kind of like WBC call's it's self  religion.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 10:54:16 am
We have the right to bear arms because when there was no United States, other forces were violating people's basic rights. Being sympathetic to such a life style, the forefathers of the United States made sure that it was okay and possible for the people to bear arms for their own protection. The law is there for a reason and no amount of arguing is going to change one of the very justifiable rights of the constitution of the United States of America (well, some Supreme Court arguing will change it).

Just because some countries in Europe don't even give their law enforcement guns, doesn't mean America needs to be the same way.

Similar to the ridiculous war on drugs, the governments of America could have a war on guns, and the result would be the same, or even worse; that result being that people are still going to get guns and people are still going to kill other people with those guns. Just like drugs are supposedly hard to get and people still get them. And the "war on guns" that I supposed would actually be a war. It could even lead to civil war.

The gun laws are fine, the people are bad. Bearing arms is liking bearing chainsaws. If I want to fucking kill someone, someone is going to fucking die. It doesn't matter if my chainsaw is as effective as a gun; one callously taken life is effectively too many.

Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people.

Was I being a douche here when I developed the base for my position on the issue?

@rajaa

"Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people." <- and once again why provide them with the necessary means to make the process easier. It shouldnt be as simple as walking into a gunstore, buying a gun, buying a gas mask, vest and munitions then walking into a crowded place and mass murder.
It's not that simple.

If the problem is the people, why give them the necessary means to carry out heinous acts. especially when that heinous act contributes to well over half of your overall crime rate.
Deny everyone their protection because a few people might be crazy? No. That's like not selling knives because someone might go on a stabbing spree. Or maybe we should ban lighters and oil. We don't need licenses to buy oil and lighters.

The underlining problem is; any old clown can get hold of a gun which is why gun related crime in the US is so high.
No. That's not the underlying problem.

Logistics would suggest that the factor contributing in the ever climbing crime in the US should be erradicated. Gun related incidents contributes to almost 70% of the overall crime in the US so its fuckers with guns that are the problem. Sure enough if you take away their "tools of the trade" they'll replace it with another but in the long run 70% of your overall crime will have fallen and massacres like these wouldnt be so common.
Stopped reading at 70%. Don't pull things out of nowhere. Please.

Doing nothing will only see your crime rates rise and thus create yet another lawless state in america. May as well live in the third world.
What? What? What?

oh and in europe law enforcement officers do carry guns... HK MP5s to be specific in london or HK G36s.
Key word from my statement: "some."

Was I being a douche here when I effectively responded to Maverik's post and full and notified him that he is completely wrong?

I'm not comparing knives and pistols, I'm comparing how easy it is to get ANYTHING to kill people; if someone wants to kill people, it is as easy as baking a fucking pie - in fact, it's even easier. Quicker too. A gun is just a another human operated tool.

Didn't everyone already call you stupid for misunderstanding that concept a few posts ago in this very same thread?

Was I being a douche here when I had to clear up something that was already cleared up pages before my post?

depending on how intelligent, fast or powerful that person is, my point was, that you can kill 1-5 people maybe with a knife at a public place before people stop you (except you can fight with a knife) but with a gun you can kill 20+ people in a few minutes , thats the big difference i meant
I can kill a whole apartment building with a lighter and some oil and I'll still have money left over to grab a bite to eat and watch the show. I don't need to be quick, smart, and/or strong to do it either. Might even be able to get the next building on fire if it's close enough.
Was I being a douche here by using an example of a non illegal, perfectly acceptable weapon?

Let's just agree to disagree. We all know how internet arguments like this end up. :P



-check your statistics
In the United States of America, 70% of all crimes are not committed with guns. You are dead wrong. Sorry.

-"what what what" I believe I was crystal clear on that point, dont see how you could have translated that statement any other way

- I stated a fact about armed forces in london I didn't need to acknowledge the "some" in your statement
You don't have to acknowledge the part of my post of which you're trying to repute? Must be some new, hip argumentative technique of which I've never had the pleasure of learning.

Was I being a douche here when Maverik couldn't accept that his percentage was wrong so he proceeded to saying that he ddn't have to acknowledge my post?

I'm sure he meant of ALL of crime:

Gun related incidents contributes to almost 70% of the overall crime in the US so its fuckers with guns that are the problem.

I'm not sure how one could get such a bogus percentage when the uniformed crime reports are easily accessible on the FBI's website.
Was I being a douche here when I explained to GBK that Maverik is in fact wrong?

@rajaa

Your selective reading and ignorant responses are hilarious and I do agree that we should just "agree to disagree" as entertaining as they are to read.

You didn't say "only violent crimes" before, so there's no selective reading going on -- and you're still wrong.

You are the only one who has spat ignorance in this topic, you obviously are ignorant of the definition of the word "ignorant." And the worst part is that you're not even gonna admit you're wrong. :-\
I was being a douche here because Maverik was being a douche to me. Sorry. It's not a one way street.

Yes. Too many precedents say that a all out ban will do absolutely nothing. What are we if we don't learn from our history as a civilization?
Was I being a douche here when I was cosigning Evil Homer's post?

No wonder they have so many  idiot / unconscious / uneducated / unstable / paranoid / etc
Um. Guns don't make people any of those things except for maybe paranoid. "Unconscious" doesn't even fit in that list. What.



Basically, gun rules over there are lax, and have fostered a society that normalises them and what they can do.
State by state. City by city. In New York City, it's nearly impossible for people (except law enforcement agents) to get guns legally. Many of the guns crimes here are with illegal guns.
Was I being a douche here when I explained to Jean that guns don't inflict the state of beings he mentioned onto people just because of their mere existence and proximity? Where I explained the state by state rule to Cyanide about gun control?

Guns don't make people unaware of their actions. :blank:

Psychopaths aren't the only people who use illegal guns to kill people. They're the very small minority.
Was I being a douche when Byakko tried to defend Jean bureau claim that guns make people unaware of their actions? Andwhat he was defending from Jean's post was unclear because Jean didn't use a more apt word? Was I being a douche?

We have the right to bear arms because when there was no United States, other forces were violating people's basic rights. Being sympathetic to such a life style, the forefathers of the United States made sure that it was okay and possible for the people to bear arms for their own protection. The law is there for a reason and no amount of arguing is going to change one of the very justifiable rights of the constitution of the United States of America

a law still applied to this day, which has absolutely NO connections to the origins of the very law

The law doesn't have any connection to itself? You must be drunk again.
Was I being a douche when I asked why his post contradicted itself? A person who is known to brag about drunken posting?

Rajaa, please, stop telling people they are dumb or stupid as a mean of some kind of argument,
Don't make dumb posts and your posts won't be called dumb. Plausibility, not argumentation. You can avoid making dumb posts by not posting while you're drunk.

Your last edit is false. You didn't read my mind correctly.
Was I being a douche when he falsely accused me of calling someone dumb or stupid in the topic when I have not done so until he mentioned it? Am I being a douche for rebutting a LIE?

Now you sound as dumb as Jean Bureau. Spare all of us from having to read any more of his horribly exaggerated and preposterous posts.
Was I being a douche to Cybaster? Maybe, but his post was mere mockery. Worthy of being called dumb.

Rajaa, please, stop telling people they are dumb or stupid as a mean of some kind of argument,
Don't make dumb posts and your posts won't be called dumb. Plausibility, not argumentation. You can avoid making dumb posts by not posting while you're drunk.

Your last edit is false. You didn't read my mind correctly.
Now calling the liar dumb because only dumb people lie in this situation to try to save face. Drunken face.

That's the 2nd time you tell me I'm exaggerating, and while this is true (I'm obviously exaggerating on purpose), this also means that if you see it as an "exaggeration", it holds a part of truth.
- Men are the problem and the US has statistically more psychos than the rest of the civilized world.
- Said psychos settle down their problems by shooting at people, thanks to laws dating from ... what ? Gold rush ? :P
You forgot the part where I said "preposterous." While some of your posts are exaggerations of the truth, most of them are wildly spat out and wrong. For instance, the state of being that you claimed guns inflict upon people. That is wrong.

All psychopaths are not violent, so counting the number of psychopaths doesn't attribute to the amount of gun deaths. In fact, most violent psychopaths have ritualistic killings and don't go out in broad daylight to kill tons of people who don't contribute to their ritualistic killings. Many of them use methods of killing OTHER than guns.

Maybe if your European news channels focused more on European countries than on America, you would all know more about the nonsense that goes on in your own countries.

But you can't even understand the contention of a straight-forward question, so I don't expect you to get any of this.

That's how it is in France : to hold a gun, you need a license, you need to pass tests (both theoritical and practical), and the gun as well as you are registered by the government. I guess it's more or less the same in other European countries. It's not about flat out banning them, which is not feasible, but about regulating and controlling them.
That is how it is in America. Some states are just more lax and callous about who gets guns or not. It would really help your argument if you did research on each state instead of pointing your gun at all of America. Pun intended.
I was being a Douche to Jean because he is a douche. Unfortunately, I was responding to Cybaster and his avatar confused me and I already confirmed that earlier.

stop telling people they are dumb when you are arguing with them
I'd rather not.

He is just telling you that the law has no connection to the current reality because the need ot have a militia at all times to ensure the protection of the land from invaders and replace the police in times of need is no longer a reality.
It's not necessarily necessary to stop invasions by foreign militias, but it's useful to stop domestic criminals who may or may not have guns obtained legally or illegally. Police officers can't be everywhere. If someone is in my house trying to rape me, a 911 call is not gonna save my life if it is in imminent danger.

Was I being a douche when I responded to Iced's post that tried to command that I stop arguing and he just happens to disagree with my position and just happens to ignore the lie the Djoulz made up and the other people who joined in on the lie?

If someone is in my house trying to rape me, a 911 call is not gonna save my life if it is in imminent danger.
Clearly you need a machine gun to fend him off.
I've never advocated that a machine gun is reasonable. You're yet another person who is drastically twisting the words of people's posts with ridiculous, misguided sarcasm.

i think rajaa is on to me...
:stare:
Was I ignoring an argument, or was I simply not responding to one because the argument was directed at me for something I never even said? I think it's the latter.

who thinks that those situations would happen a lot more often than they really do, and who thinks the only solution in such a situation is a gun.
They happen more often than psychos shooting up movie theaters.

It's okay to be angry. I have that effect on people.
Was I being a douche, even though Byakko was being a huge douche to me? Suprisingly not. Mostly because Byakko is an angry person and I don't want to waste time with his editing and walls of texts.

Neither is the gun in your drawer when they're going to rape you in the living room by surprise.
However, it might become dangerous when your 15 yo boy finds it and decides to show your 6 yo daughter how fun it is to use it.

By that logic, should I buy a rocket launcher for each time I go in a bank because the vans full of bills to refill the ATMs are sometimes attacked by robbers who have rocket launchers ? You know, just in case...

Anything might become dangerous when a 16-year-old thinks it's a good idea to teach a 5-year-old how to use any kind of deadly weapon.

And your rocket launcher examples are becoming increasingly dumber. I don't even know why you are bringing those up. Those are a different class of weapons and aren't casually sold legally.

Being a douche or countering? Countering it is!

Hey, guess what, you finally got our comparison/hyperbole : knives and guns are from different classes of weapons, and the latter shouldn't casually be sold legally.
Any genius knows that there are different classes of weapons, I didn't just stumble upon that information, as much as you'd like to think I did. The argument of knives is that if someone wants to be a random killer, they have other weapons at their disposal besides guns, legal or illegal.

This has gotten repetitive.
Was I being a douche, or was I, again, explaining that I didn't say what was being argued against? The latter, once more. It was even implied that I was "slow," but I wasn't untactful. Nosiree.

Are you fucking serious?
Pretty much.

Was that being a douche? Answering a simple question? Well, shoot me.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 10:57:23 am

Geeeeeeeeeze Rajaa...  you really think anyone besides us has the attention span to read all that?

Edit:
By the way, I do notice some flaws with other people's argument, but no one actually provided an actual link or literal proof without text to show that their post are proper and/or supported by proper evidence rather than just your own opinion.

Statistics were provided by Cyanide -

Statistics can be tweaked to prove anything.  I do it all the time.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 11:00:27 am
Now you sound as dumb as Jean Bureau. Spare all of us from having to read any more of his horribly exaggerated and preposterous posts.
There's an example. The post just before that is pretty terrible too. You basically claimed that the right to bear arms was TOTALLY justified in this day and age despite the fact other people were talking about the creation of that law and the spirit in which it was made at the time. This is also with the fact you've generalised about people and claimed that
A: they must be drunk (as if this actually matters if their typing is legible)
B: You didn't pay any attention to who someone was and replied as if they were someone you didn't like (Jean) without really analysing the contents of their post.

I'm sure Byakko will provide a few more examples.

Djoulz lied. Cybaster was mocking me. And you claimed that I made an argument after you seemed to join in with everyone else and said I didn't, that I only called people dumb. I'd like you to make up your mind.

Either Djoulz was drunk or he can't read because I hadn't called anyone dumb before his post. I assumed the former because he never displayed an inability to grasp posts.

I didn't pay attention to people who argued against things that I didn't say. Get that through your head. And I don't like Maverik, Jean, or Byakko. But that didn't stop me from personally going to Maverik on MI and facilitating him getting unbanned and doing it myself.

You see, as much as you'd like to think my actions and posts are biased because of dislike, they are not. Friend, foe, or neither, I am always "Rajaa" and my posts are not swayed by relationship statuses.

Sorry, Cyanide, but you are wrong.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 23, 2012, 11:04:02 am
Cybaster was mocking me.
There's a difference between mocking someone and exagerrating in a sarcastic way to show that one's point is wrong.
EDIT : okay, in this particular post, I was mocking you. :blank: But still, you said Djoulz was drunk when his post made sense...


Going to the constitution which you love apparently. Does america still have a citizens militia?
individual STATES however, do have constitutional militias made up of it's citizens for the purpose of  preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitutions of the United States and of their state.  I dont know if EVERY state has them, but most do.  There are also a few fringe para-military groups out there calling themselves militia...  kind of like WBC call's it's self  religion.

:bow:
Are these constitutional militias made up of racist Republicans ramping in the streets with guns, shooting on sight to the evil Mexicans who want to invade their God blessed country ?

 :bow:

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 11:08:29 am
That's a statement not backed up by any quotes or anything. If you've read the last 8 pages, show your work, Mr. "Fuck You Shut the Fuck Up."

My posts don't read like that at all. Sorry. Try again.
Okay.
Spoiler: Quotes (click to see content)
All of this is about other people than the ones discussed here, about other events than the ones discussed here. Other ways to obtain illegal weapons, other ways to kill people, other uses of those weapons, other dangerous tools with other regulations.
Do you need stats with that ? Because I can provide some, here's what they say :
Spoiler: Stats (click to see content)
All you did was quote all of my posts and topped it off with a loosely written paragraph and unfunny, failed attempt at quip.

Maybe if you tell me to shut the fuck again, you'll look even smarter.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 11:12:47 am

Are these constitutional militias made up of racist Republicans ramping in the streets with guns, shooting on sight to the evil Mexicans who want to invade their God blessed country ?

 :bow:


A Constitutional Militia is open to every citizen regardless of race, color, gender, etc.  Racist groups by definition are not recognized as being constitutional militia.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 11:14:32 am
You asked for quotes. I did make my point, before you asked for quotes and again in that post. In the last 9 pages (5 to 13), you have only talked about
Quote
other people than the ones discussed here, about other events than the ones discussed here. Other ways to obtain illegal weapons, other ways to kill people, other uses of those weapons, other dangerous tools with other regulations.
and that was at the very best. None of these posts actually address what's being discussed. You say OTHER psychopaths can use OTHER methods. You say OTHER good people can use guns to defend themselves with OTHER weapons. You say OTHER laws apply on OTHER weapons.
When Cybaster and I use sarcasm to forcibly reconnect your post and the actual discussion, you say we mock you.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 11:15:58 am
Why does he act like he is indeniably omniscient at all time ???

Man if i was getting a nickle everytime he says "you're wrong" , i would be able to buy a PS3 at the end of the week  :mmhmm:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 11:17:05 am
You asked for quotes. I did make my point, before you asked for quotes and again in that post. In the last 9 pages (5 to 13), you have only talked about
Quote
other people than the ones discussed here, about other events than the ones discussed here. Other ways to obtain illegal weapons, other ways to kill people, other uses of those weapons, other dangerous tools with other regulations.
and that was at the very best. None of these posts actually address what's being discussed. You say OTHER psychopaths can use OTHER methods. You say OTHER good people can use guns to defend themselves with OTHER weapons. You say OTHER laws apply on OTHER weapons.
When Cybaster and I use sarcasm to forcibly reconnect your post and the actual discussion, you say we mock you.
Cybaster just admitted to mocking me, your post, like all the rest, is invalid. Have a great day -- if you can manage to stop being miserable all the time.

Why does he act like he is indeniably omniscient at all time ???

Man if i was getting a nickle everytime he says "you're wrong" , i would be able to buy a PS3 at the end of the week  :mmhmm:
Why are you so stupid all the time?

Answer: You were born that way.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 11:21:32 am
Still not addressing any part of the topic. Still only throwing insults. You still have nothing to do in this discussion.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 23, 2012, 11:23:43 am
Djoulz lied. Cybaster was mocking me. And you claimed that I made an argument after you seemed to join in with everyone else and said I didn't, that I only called people dumb. I'd like you to make up your mind.
hey Rajaa: could you stop fucking mentioning me and actually saying bullshit about me, like i'm a liar (?? the fuck??) or i can't read or something? seriously, re-read my first post: you OBVIOUSLY couldn't read between the lines in your post-ability all-mightiness:

Quote
Either Djoulz was drunk or he can't read because I hadn't called anyone dumb before his post. I assumed the former because he never displayed an inability to grasp posts.

Now you sound as dumb as Jean Bureau. Spare all of us from having to read any more of his horribly exaggerated and preposterous posts.

followed by my post:
Rajaa, please, stop telling people they are dumb or stupid as a mean of some kind of argument....

next time, have a fucking drink on me.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 11:26:45 am
Let him humiliate himself. The bigger the attention he is grabbing the more users on the forum can witness the kind of guy he is.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 11:28:56 am
Ok I have really simple hypothetical that I think will give a lot of insight:

Consider a country with no wild west heritage, where guns are forbidden almost entirely. That means noone has a gun, besides very few non-automatic weapons used for sport. These require a license, need to be held in a safe (with unanounced checks at random times), and must be transported separately from its ammunition to get from A to B.

Do you think introducing a right to bear arms into such a system would help security, or be a good idea in general?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 11:30:42 am
*coughcough*  back to heated debate about gunz please.

This whole "you're dumb, no you're dumber, well YOU"RE dumbest"  isn't very fun.

 >:(

edit:  thats directed to everyone before Val.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 11:31:08 am
You could start by answering my question.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 11:31:48 am
Quote
Do you think introducing a right to bear arms into such a system would hlep security, or be a good idea in general?
NO. but do we really need to say why or is it F*CKIN OBVIOUS enough ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 11:32:10 am
need to be held in a safe (with unanounced checks at random times), and must be transported separately from its ammunition to get from A to B.
I think these two things are way too excessive.

But there's nothing that says this hypothetical country doesn't have something granting the right to bear arms, it's just those arms are heavily regulated because they are very dangerous.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 23, 2012, 11:32:49 am
Cybaster just admitted to mocking me, your post, like all the rest, is invalid.
I was mocking you in this particular post, because you failed at reading comprehension when addressing Djoulz' post.

My other posts are not mockery, and I'm still waiting to know why :
If the reason for holding a gun is "bad guys have guns, I must have a gun to defend myself, just in case" (which, by the way, almost never works because you won't have the time to use said gun, or you won't have it on you when necessary, aka it will only be useful in some very rare instances), then I'm still waiting for my counter argument to why, in this case, is it unreasonable to buy a rocket launcher and an AK47 to defend myself, because some bad guys have one too ?

As Byakko said :
If it doesn't matter that guns get banned because even illegal weapons can be acquired, then it doesn't matter that rocket launchers are banned because illegal weapons can still be acquired. If you say rocket launchers are bad, then the same logic can be applied for guns. The line you draw between guns and rocket launchers is completely arbitrary, and the same thing can always be said about guns and knives.
And don't even try to say that banned rocket launchers would be harder to get than banned guns, because by that logic, banned guns would be harder to get than banned knives, so we just have to ban knives to get rid of guns.

A Constitutional Militia is open to every citizen regardless of race, color, gender, etc.  Racist groups by definition are not recognized as being constitutional militia.

:bow:
Just read the Wikipedia article (which looks very incomplete). That's some odd stuff, having another "enforcement group", not regulated by the government, and who say they're constitutional in the sense of "defending their beloved constitution", while at the same time being "anti-government" since they think the federals and the government sort of violate the constitution. I see what they mean, and can only hope for citizens they act and behave true to their cause, but this feels ... odd.

@ Val : is this question addressed to Rajaa and MissB, or to everybody ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 11:34:25 am
Gibs auf Valo..die Waffenfreaks/Verteidiger ihres Systems raffens eh ned..also was solls. Sollen se sich halt gegenseitig abballern was das Zeugs hält

In english, give up valo, die weaponfreaks/defenders of their system dont understand it anyway. Shall they shoot each other as often as they want.

Also, honestly.

I believe nobody here in this forum, especially not the participants of this specific thread are dumb. Nobody of them.

The words dumb, idiot, stupid are used way too often on MFG however. I wish it would be different and on a higher level sometimes.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 11:35:30 am
Ok I have really simple hypothetical that I think will give a lot of insight:

Consider a country with no wild west heritage, where guns are forbidden almost entirely. That means noone has a gun, besides very few non-automatic weapons used for sport. These require a license, need to be held in a safe (with unanounced checks at random times), and must be transported separately from its ammunition to get from A to B.

Do you think introducing a right to bear arms into such a system would help security, or be a good idea in general?
There's already a right to bear arms in your hypothetical country because people can get licenses for "hunting weapons."
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 23, 2012, 11:36:22 am
I think these two things are way too excessive.
Not more than having to lose 3 hours at the fucking airport, getting undressed and being touched by an officer each time we take the plane, because you were attacked and decided to check everybody every single time.

There's already a right to bear arms in your hypothetical country because people can get licenses for "hunting weapons."
And ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 11:37:52 am
What do you mean "and"?

He asked if it was a good idea to introduce the right, but it's already there.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 11:39:36 am
It was a yes or no question, which everyone may or may not elaborate on. Because it is what this really boils down to - leaving the status quo out of the discussion, which is the desirable state, and if one is preferable, how much effort is it worth getting there.

I think these two things are way too excessive.

not really. people just have ammunition at the place where they use the weapon for recreation. the restriction is harsh, but is not problematic in practice.

Oh also, hunting rifles can be brought with ammunition to a hunting trip (nowhere else). but you need a hunter's license to have one (which means you need to know animals and shit), and the same holding restrictions apply. And you obviously can only have hunting rifles.

Rajaa: It was a yes or no question. C'mon :(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 11:42:55 am
OMG ITS NO WTF...
why is there even a discussion. NO

-
Quote
He asked if it was a good idea to introduce the right, but it's already there.

it's for HUNTING guns only. not automatic rifles and such.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 11:44:10 am
There is a discussion because people may have different opinions on that, or other, questions.

If you are not interested in that, why are you here? We have enough posts saying "it's so obvious sheesh!!" already.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 11:44:19 am
Ok I have really simple hypothetical that I think will give a lot of insight:

Consider a country with no wild west heritage, where guns are forbidden almost entirely. That means noone has a gun, besides very few non-automatic weapons used for sport. These require a license, need to be held in a safe (with unanounced checks at random times), and must be transported separately from its ammunition to get from A to B.

Do you think introducing a right to bear arms into such a system would help security, or be a good idea in general?

Good question.  Let's use Europe as an example...  At this point in history what are the chances of some sort of infantry type invasion where citizens would need to be armed?  What about terrorism?  Eastern Europe hasnt exactly been known for being "civilized" over the past couple of decades.  I would say the closer you live to any border where there is civil unrest or have huge areas of unprotected border, there may be a greater need for citizens to be armed. 

That does not mean I think they SHOULD be, no one should be forced to own guns.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 23, 2012, 11:44:26 am
OMG ITS NO WTF...
why is there even a discussion. NO



dude, chill: you stated your opinion, let others do so if they want to, it doesn't matter if they don't have the same point of view on the subject as you!

ninjaed >.>
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 11:47:31 am
thanks i already know all of that... it's a way of speaking... of course i know why there is a discussion..

gee taking stuff at first degree  --; (did you really think i was actually ignoring the purpose of a discussion for real ? cmon. Be reasonable)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 11:48:08 am
Not more than having to lose 3 hours at the fucking airport, getting undressed and being touched by an officer each time we take the plane, because you were attacked and decided to check everybody every single time.
What? Are you sure you went to an airport? Because that just sounds like you got molested, maybe at a club called "The Airport" or something. ;P

To finish off this tangent: the waiting doesn't take that long, and removing most of the security thingys added after 9/11 would not greatly speed up the check-in process. Stuff like taking off shoes and preventing large containers of liquids are just minor inconviences (that don't really help anything be safer), but they certainly don't add a non-trivial amount of to the security screening process.

not really. people just have ammunition at the place where they use the weapon for recreation. the restriction is harsh, but is not problematic in practice.
Hmm, maybe, but what if the hunter wanted to go to another place to do their hunting (because I dunno the one they're at was attacked by giant killer bees or something). Would this hunter have to make two trips to another hunting location, one trip carrying his gun, and the other his ammo? Or would the hunter need someone else, like a government official to transport the ammo?

The random checks are definitely excessive, though.

OMG ITS NO WTF...
why is there even a discussion. NO
What.

it's for HUNTING guns only. not automatic rifles and such.
A right to bear arms does not imply the right to bear any and all arms.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: -Red- on July 23, 2012, 11:49:13 am
I'd rather ban animal hunting altogether before guns. That's even more pointless.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 11:50:42 am
Jean: Don't act like you are not taking other people in a discussion seriously then. They will probably just resort to calling names.

JMorphman: See above addendum about hunting weapons.

Rednavi: Um. Talking more about forestry here, not so much sports.

Good question.  Let's use Europe as an example...  At this point in history what are the chances of some sort of infantry type invasion where citizens would need to be armed?  What about terrorism?  Eastern Europe hasnt exactly been known for being "civilized" over the past couple of decades.  I would say the closer you live to any border where there is civil unrest or have huge areas of unprotected border, there may be a greater need for citizens to be armed. 

Is that how you answer a yes/no question? Eh.

So, your argument here is "infantry type invasion"? I'm pretty sure we replaced the need to arm the mob with an organized military and international politics a couple of decades ago.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 23, 2012, 11:51:09 am
What do you mean "and"?

He asked if it was a good idea to introduce the right, but it's already there.
He's obviously talking about the right to introduce normal guns such as 9mms, and the right for each citizen to hold this type of weapon in his closet, in this hypothetical country.

Also, the answer is NO.
You don't even have to take a hypothetical country.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in France ? No.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in Germany ? No.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in Spain ? No.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in Australia ? No.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in the UK ? No.

Should automatic weapons be allowed in the US ? ... Hah, whatever, let them kill themselves, they seem to like it. At least, with stuff like this and Columbine, Fox News has more stuff to say.

Quote
Good question.  Let's use Europe as an example...  At this point in history what are the chances of some sort of infantry type invasion where citizens would need to be armed?  What about terrorism?  Eastern Europe hasnt exactly been known for being "civilized" over the past couple of decades.  I would say the closer you live to any border where there is civil unrest or have huge areas of unprotected border, there may be a greater need for citizens to be armed.
Are you waiting for the Talibans to attack by ship ? Or maybe the Nazis from the moon ? o_O
There's terrorism in France, Spain and the UK too, doesn't mean everybody has to be armed. It wouldn't stop anybody from bombing a subway.
France has borders with the sea, many immigrants come from Africa and go to France. We don't feel the need to shoot at them. They're looking for a better life, they don't want to invade you.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 11:51:29 am
Quote
Quote
Quote from: JeanBureau † on Today at 04:42:55 am

    it's for HUNTING guns only. not automatic rifles and such.
A right to bear arms does not imply the right to bear any and all arms.
His example was stating that the only guns allowed in his fictive city are hunting guns,

And the question was thus, should we now introduce "the other" guns ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 11:51:58 am

A right to bear arms does not imply the right to bear any and all arms.

Did you even SEE the links I posted?  I want those tanks!

I'd rather ban animal hunting altogether before guns. That's even more pointless.

Uh....  actually it's not.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 11:54:32 am
the laws in hypothetical-land are obviously the same as in Germany (and probably other european countries).

Bleh. 15 pages of insightless NO U discussion. I'm outta here
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: -Red- on July 23, 2012, 11:56:37 am
Rednavi: Um. Talking more about forestry here, not so much sports.

hyperbole


Uh....  actually it's not.

:bow:

hyperbole
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 11:57:08 am

Good question.  Let's use Europe as an example...  At this point in history what are the chances of some sort of infantry type invasion where citizens would need to be armed?  What about terrorism?  Eastern Europe hasnt exactly been known for being "civilized" over the past couple of decades.  I would say the closer you live to any border where there is civil unrest or have huge areas of unprotected border, there may be a greater need for citizens to be armed. 

Is that how you answer a yes/no question? Eh.

So, your argument here is "infantry type invasion"? I'm pretty sure we replaced the need to arm the mob with an organized military and international politics a couple of decades ago.

I guess my post wasnt clear...  because at this point in history there ISNT much of a chance of infantry type invasion, there isn't a need to arm citizens.  But there may be other reasons.  I'm not biting on the yes/no question because I don't know enough about said hypothetical country to make an informed answer.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 11:57:59 am
btw, the laws in hypothetical-land are the same as in Germany.

state them to put everybody on the same page then

MissBhaven -
Sooo... what's with you and guns exactly  ;D
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 11:58:06 am
Rajaa: It was a yes or no question. C'mon :(

Okay, okay! :P

To be honest, who wouldn't want to live in a country -- a world -- where guns and anything like them didn't exist? I would love to. So, I would say, no, it's not a good idea in your hypothetical country. But only in your hypothetical country, if your hypothetical country is a gun violence free utopia.

However, in the real world, at least in my country, guns are part of some of the cultures that exist. Guns sports (not always hunting); "Making a boy into a man," which there's not necessarily anything wrong with unless coupled with other social disorders of the state.

So, if guns were outright banished here, then criminals, who have access to illegal guns while law abiding citizens don't, will have huge advantages over everyone else, even with law enforcement involved. So, as a means of culture (because we do have a wild west history and a history of being colonized) and for protection, we have a right to bear arms.

Could the government have better control over guns? Fuck yeah. Could they forget about ALMOST unnecessary things like the war on drugs and focus that time and energy on gun control and the prevention illegally obtained guns? I think so. But outright banning the gun law is not going to work. And I don't think that a psycho or any other psycho obtaining guns and killing people is a reason to not keep a right to bear arms, because someone who wants to kill, is going to kill, regardless of the means to that end.

Even more, I'm sure you'd agree that there are more sane people than psychotic people, so if some sane people are armed when that one insane person, terrorist or psycho decided to crash the party, someone might end that person's life before they end anyone else's or too many of anyone else's.

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
Yeah, but that right obviously already exists in his country, but he already cleared up the intention of his post, so it's alright now.

Also, the answer is NO.
You don't even have to take a hypothetical country.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in France ? No.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in Germany ? No.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in Spain ? No.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in Australia ? No.
Should automatic weapons be allowed in the UK ? No.

Should automatic weapons be allowed in the US ? ... Hah, whatever, let them kill themselves, they seem to like it. At least, with stuff like this and Columbine, Fox News has more stuff to say.
Why are you so obsessed with automatic weapons? I have never once said that people having automatic weapons is essential or necessary in any event, nor have I said the opposite. This is why I don't respond fully to these types posts. Take it as you will.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 11:59:39 am
Should automatic weapons be allowed in the US ? ... Hah, whatever, let them kill themselves, they seem to like it. At least, with stuff like this and Columbine, Fox News has more stuff to say.
--;

Did you even SEE the links I posted?  I want those tanks!
I don't think so? I don't remember seeing it; it probably got lost among all the replies.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 12:05:49 pm


Did you even SEE the links I posted?  I want those tanks!
I don't think so? I don't remember seeing it; it probably got lost among all the replies.


here ya go!

Oh really? I just showed a link where you could acquire grenade launchers.

That website is NFA rules, you can't just add a grenade launcher to your cart and put it on paypal.


These type of people, if they could buy a tank or a biological weapon, would probably do so.

 Oh baby I'm gonna get me a tank, maybe 3!  (http://www.stvgroup.cz/en/PRODUCTS-SERVICES/Sale-military-vehicles-for-collectors)

:bow:

Edit!  Oh cool a howitzer! 

Quote
There is not much detailed information about this weapon available. Its service in armies was secret due to possibility of fire atomic ammunition.

Now how much to ship it from Russia?  Dang the USA doesnt sell cool howitzers that fire atomic ammunition.

Edit again:

http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/Tanks_Trucks_Jeeps_for_sale_page.html

Check out that rocket tank for sale in the UK.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 12:08:16 pm
Quote
Jackie Chan Allegedly Missed Being In Aurora Theater
   
Sometimes when something tragic happens in the United States, Chinese media (including Taiwan and Hong Kong) will jump at the chance to somehow relate it to something happening in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Despite the gravity and the horror of what happened last Friday in Colorado, the Chinese media have done it again, this time linking Chinese movie star Jackie Chan to the tragedy.


According to Hong Kong's Oriental Daily, Jackie Chan has going the rounds talking about how he escaped a near death experience in Aurora. Oriental Daily reports that Chan was allegedly invited to for the premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado but work obligations got in the way and he had to return to Beijing.

Taiwan's China Times reported that while Chan expressed grief and shock over the incident he seemed to be more worried about how the upgraded security will affect the premiere of his own upcoming movie Chinese Zodiac .

Now if any of this is to be believed, it would make Jackie Chan a really big loser for trying to gain exposure of his live-action Jackie Chan Adventures movie, however please keep in mind that Jackie Chan isn't exactly the well loved action hero he seems to be.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 12:14:29 pm
Rajaa

You said if we were to restrict normal people (normal = not a criminal) to have guns, it would give an advantage to criminals who ignores the law anyway. That is true.
So pretty much, what motivates you is the fear of having your safety lowered (you couldn't defend yourself anymore).

But then, why this fear ?

I mean considering the legislation in France for example, according to your argument above, we, "normal" french citizen are disadvantaged compared to criminals since we can't have guns so easily.

But here is the thing --> We don't have that fear of yours explaining a constant desire to own a gun.

Why the fear ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 12:19:51 pm
^^ because their tv channels. They preach fear and violence.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 12:21:06 pm
You said if we were to restrict normal people (normal = not a criminal) to have guns, it would give an advantage to criminals who ignores the law anyway. That is true.
So pretty much, what motivates you is the fear of having your safety lowered (you couldn't defend yourself anymore).

But then, why this fear ?
Why fear criminals with guns when I am without the means to defend myself? I think you already know the answer to that question.

I mean considering the legislation in France for example, according to your argument above, we, "normal" french citizen are disadvantaged compared to criminals since we can't have guns so easily.
Yes. You are.

But here is the thing --> We don't have that fear of yours explaining a constant desire to own a gun.

Why the fear ?
To be clear: It's not fear. It's entitlement. We don't fear being randomly killed by criminals like people might fear in countries like Mexico. We feel entitled. If everyone else is gonna have guns, we should be able to have guns too. The law is not an outright bad law, it is useful. If at some time in the future it is amended, then so be it, but there's always a chance that it can be changed back. It all depends on who is running the government and how they're controlling guns. Luckily, the government of my country, so far, agrees with me, and I like that.

I don't necessarily speak for everyone's reasoning for the right to bear arms.

^^ because their tv channels. They preach fear and violence.
Please tell me this is a joke.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 12:24:46 pm
here ya go!
Hmm, it seems (I think) they're only selling "models of weapons and ammunition"?

WAIT EVERYONE SHUT UP THERE IS SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL OF THIS
Quote
live-action Jackie Chan Adventures movie
:woeh:

oh wait it's just a similar premise I guess :(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 12:25:26 pm
Quote
"We feel entitled. If everyone else is gonna have guns, we should be able to have guns too."

See? Thats the mistake  :)

"someone has weapons..so we need weapons too!

Thats a basic thought which reminds me at the stone age. Seriously.

And yes that about the tv channels was  meant as a joke.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 12:27:10 pm
How is that a mistake? Explain why it is a mistake.

If you mean self preservation reminds you of the stone age, then you might not be going far back enough. In fact, that is one of the jobs of  a state, allowing people to preserve themselves and their possessions (if you consider property a natural right instead of a state-induced one).

What if the police force decides it's open season on citizens? They'll think twice when those citizens have guns. It's not only for petty criminals, it's for invasions, revolts, things like the shooting in this thread.

You can't boil this down to the stone age and call it day. It's much more than that.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 12:32:16 pm
The mistake is, that someone has weapons already.

The 2nd mistake is that there are people who want to have weapons because someone else has

See, if nobody would have weapons in the first place..why should someone want them...except he is a psycho of course.

Yes i know what you mean but i rather chosed the stone age example as talking about the battles of the different species when it comes to kill others for food or space.


Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 12:34:37 pm
What if the police force decides it's open season on citizens?

If that is even a remotely relevant fear, then you have bigger problems than gun control I'd say.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 12:41:44 pm
See, if nobody would have weapons in the first place..why should someone want them...except he is a psycho of course.
If it only it was as simple as making nobody have weapons. You're oversimplifying this; and that might be an understatement.

Yes i know what you mean but i rather chosed the stone age example as talking about the battles of the different species when it comes to kill others for food or space.
That's not the stone age, that's, unfortunately, the way of survival. =p

What if the police force decides it's open season on citizens?

If that is even a remotely relevant fear, then you have bigger problems than gun control I'd say.
True. But it doesn't hurt to be prepared for something that isn't likely to happen. =p

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 23, 2012, 12:44:56 pm
What if the police force decides it's open season on citizens?

If that is even a remotely relevant fear, then you have bigger problems than gun control I'd say.

well, did you check the news today?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fatal-police-involved-shooting-leads-near-riot-anaheim-article-1.1119702 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fatal-police-involved-shooting-leads-near-riot-anaheim-article-1.1119702)



yes, it was open-season
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 12:48:24 pm
True. But it doesn't hurt to be prepared for something that isn't likely to happen. =p

I hope you recognize this as the start of the vicious circle that it is...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 23, 2012, 12:50:55 pm
the laws in hypothetical-land are obviously the same as in Germany (and probably other european countries).

Bleh. 15 pages of insightless NO U discussion. I'm outta here

:(
I believe I tried to make and fact based posts, but they seem to have gone completely ignored.
I have even mentioned two shootings that happened here in Brazil, where guns are soft banned and regulated by laws similar to the ones you proposed on your post.
Because of our borders and population size, those guys just managed to get illegal guns and commit their crimes. One got two revolvers and hundreds of ammo to shoot a children's school, the other an uzi with 50 9mm rounds to shoot people during the screening of Fight Club in 1999, which clearly shows that not having the right to bear arms will not stop tragedies like the one in Aurora...

I don't think that none of you who live in Europe need the right to bear arms. You have a more controlled situation there, with borders very well defined, and neighbors you can usually trust. I am glad you have that situation there. Good for you all.

But here, and in the US, situation is quite different. Here any bum can get an illegal gun, and there's nothing I can do about that.
I would feel safer here if I had the right to bear arms and carry a concealed gun, because things are ugly around these parts.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 12:59:18 pm
Man that video is terrible... what the fuck with these cops. In France cops are almost afraid to pull out their guns because it would be easy to have the legislation against them even if they point / shoot a suspect / criminal.

These cops on the video seem to believe they are cowboys maybe...  o_O

------------

MissChastity

You bring a valuable point.
The bottom line is that the environment is more harmful in ths US which explains a bigger need in people to have a gun. But then, I have another question, Why is the environment more harmful ?

What is the source of the problem ?

Why is it more dangerous to live in US than in EU in the first place ? What causes this higher danger sort of speaking ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 12:59:28 pm
See? @ Beatrice

Thats where harder laws about come into play, of course your crime and gangs culture has to be erased as well though. Banning guns might only solve half of the problem.

The Mafia and syndicates in Brazil and the USA need to extinct.

After all, this tragic case in the theatre wasnt done by a mafiosi however but by some 24 year old stupid idiot, ..who could get his weapons because lax laws.

@jean. check out youtube. There are hundreds of videos showing american cops behaving like they are cowboys and the absolute law. Those guys there have a different understanding of their job as here in europe.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 01:07:03 pm
True. But it doesn't hurt to be prepared for something that isn't likely to happen. =p

I hope you recognize this as the start of the vicious circle that it is...
Well, like you said, if that happens, then there are bigger problems at hand. Something's gotta give.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 01:17:56 pm
Why is it more dangerous to live in US than in EU in the first place ?
Ooh is this the "throw out unsubstantiated bullshit" game? Lemme try.

Why do Europeans eat their own poop? It's so disgusting!

@jean. check out youtube. There are hundreds of videos showing american cops behaving like they are cowboys and the absolute law. Those guys there have a different understanding of their job as here in europe.
And I'm sure there are zero videos of European cops behaving the same way. I definitely haven't heard anything about police brutality during austerity measure riots.

it's a shame we USEAians are so stupid and dumb
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 01:22:01 pm
Why do you call yourself stupid and dumb? (not that i would have a problem with that..in your case)

Did someone call you or americans in general stupid or dumb or why such a reaction?

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 01:23:44 pm
...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 23, 2012, 01:31:45 pm
Ooh is this the "throw out unsubstantiated bullshit" game? Lemme try.
I'm pretty sure you perfectly understood his point, even if it wasn't phrased to your liking :
- USA : we need guns because of background history and because it's dangerous, so we need them to defend ourselves.
- EU : we don't have guns and it works perfectly. Of course some people get killed by guns, that can't be avoided, but there are far less gun related crimes than in the US.
-> Question : Are the US less safe than EU ? If not, why this need to defend yourself more than in EU (where it works better in terms of crimes) if the country (not the country as a whole, more like State by State, you get the point) isn't more dangerous to live in ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 01:34:02 pm
Why do you call yourself stupid and dumb? (not that i would have a problem with that..in your case)

Did someone call you or americans in general stupid or dumb or why such a reaction?


Non-American: ALL AMERICANS ARE STUPID!

American: I take offense to that!

Non-American: I only said all Americans are stupid, not you. Why are you offended?

American: Who's stupid now?



Yeah. I am done here. This all boils down to certain people not liking America. I am sure of it.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 01:41:16 pm
I dont know who is stupid but nobody called you /americans in general that here.

Why are you and Jmorphman making things up and change words?

Quote
"Yeah. I am done here. This all boils down to certain people not liking America. I am sure of it."

That however, is bullshit.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 01:44:06 pm
Jmorphman was being sarcastic because you went back to the comparing of America to Europe and implying that American cops are inferior because of the more prominent youtube videos. My post was a satiric synopsis of what this thread is about. I quoted your post because it was the last relevant post.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 01:44:38 pm
I'm pretty sure you perfectly understood his point, even if it wasn't phrased to your liking :
Phrasing has absoultely nothing to do with it. His question takes as a premise that the US is more dangerous than the EU.

I find that to be unsubstantiated bullshit, not because how he said it, but because it is unsubstantiated bullshit.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 23, 2012, 01:47:21 pm
10+ KILLED IN SHOOTING DURING DKR

AMERICAN LAW ON GUNS STUPID !!!

LAW NOT STUPID, NEED GUNS TO DEFEND OURSELVES !!! MORE GUNS !!! BIG GUNS !!!

BUT WHY !? THEY'RE NOT USEFUL !!!

YES THEY ARE! PEOPLE ARE OUT TO RAPE ME AND ATTACK MY BORDERS, AND THE POLICE MAY KILL ALL CITIZENS !!!

WAIT WHAT !? ARE THE US NOT SAFE !?

YOU EAT YOUR POOP !!!

WHAT, YOU STUPID !?

YOU HATE AMERICANS, FUCK YOU !!!

:stare: :stare: :stare: :stare: :stare: :stare:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Wolfenkrieg on July 23, 2012, 02:13:30 pm
I'm sorry, that doesn't beat Russia  >:(

Now back to whoever wanted a MLA citation.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm
Gun crimes and violent crime.

Now onto the US-EU topic -> No use hating each other, both have flaws. Most governments are corrupted (The World Index Will Help You). The lower the number, the higher the corruption. The higher the number, the lesser the corruption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/dec/01/world-corruption-index-transparency-international-map

I see Russia being the highest corrupted country in EU (I see) and some countries in EU being the same as America. In the end, no use fighting over each other on which country is better. It's useless.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 23, 2012, 02:14:29 pm
To go back on-topic, from a famous French newspaper (Le Monde) :
(http://vidberg.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2012/07/189_batman.gif)
Top : The slaughter in the US revives the debate during the electoral campaign.
Bubble : should we ban Batman movies ?

Edit : this is not to be taken 100% seriously, obviously. The author always points out problems in a satirical way.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 23, 2012, 02:23:16 pm
MissChastity

You bring a valuable point.
The bottom line is that the environment is more harmful in ths US which explains a bigger need in people to have a gun. But then, I have another question, Why is the environment more harmful ?

What is the source of the problem ?

Why is it more dangerous to live in US than in EU in the first place ? What causes this higher danger sort of speaking ?

The source of the problem is people, not guns.
Stricter gun laws didn't stop the 1999 shooting here in Brazil. Uzis are surely banned here. Not even cops can buy one.
If you ban guns, they will just smuggle it through the borders, which are huge in countries like US and Brazil, and thus much harder to patrol.

See? @ Beatrice

Thats where harder laws about come into play, of course your crime and gangs culture has to be erased as well though. Banning guns might only solve half of the problem.

The Mafia and syndicates in Brazil and the USA need to extinct.

After all, this tragic case in the theatre wasnt done by a mafiosi however but by some 24 year old stupid idiot, ..who could get his weapons because lax laws.

As I said above, lax laws weren't the cause of this tragedy.
If laws were far more stricter, a mean spirited person like this one would just get an illegal gun and commit the crime.
I know of that because it's exactly what happened here.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 02:33:13 pm
The source of the problem is people, not guns.
Stricter gun laws didn't stop the 1999 shooting here in Brazil. Uzis are surely banned here. Not even cops can buy one.
If you ban guns, they will just smuggle it through the borders, which are huge in countries like US and Brazil, and thus much harder to patrol.
Don't say it like it's a good excuse to NOT ban guns. Someone already made the parallel that since there are still murders or rapes even though those are illegal, then we might as well let them slide legally.
Obviously the problem is people before guns. Obviously the problem is the guy who rapes a child and not sex in general. Obviously it would be better to teach people not to do this and that, to give them a reason not to do it (give them a proper job so they don't need it), and to stop those who just can't help it anyway because of mental problems or whatever. But obviously, that doesn't work / exist.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 02:39:34 pm
just came back from sushi restaurant and i wasn't expecting Jmorphman to get so worked up over my question.

It was a genuine question with no intention to insult USA (I have been there many times and I said I have family over there, don't even try to portray me as anti-american)

And yes the question was presuming that the US are more dangerous than EU, because the question was following WHAT MISS CHASTITY SAID. So read back her post preceeding my question, and if you are still outraged, ask her the reasons she made that statement, that logically explains the presumptions in my question.

--------------

We are talking about all this gun thing but, has the controversy even been discussed seriously in USA ? I don't know if that's a classic theme of debate in USA, just like Immigration and National Identity is in France, that's why I am asking.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 23, 2012, 02:44:41 pm
Indeed. At this point, I think we all understand that flat out banning stuff can't work so easily. There's a social environment surrounding things, different places call for different behaviours.
However, men live in society, create and define said society. Laws and everything around it are built to "live in peace" (I'm simplifying, whatever). As a society, men should strive for a better world. You can't decide that something is fine just because some crazy people can put you in danger.

Once again, nobody (I believe) is saying that restricting guns is going to miraculously solve the problem. It won't. But it's a start.
You then need to eradicate gangs, control borders, enforce laws, etc. It's easier said than done, and as you said, probably much harder to do in huge countries such as Brazil or the US, but you have to start somewhere. You can't just wait and say "it's fine, because we can't do much".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 23, 2012, 03:12:09 pm
What I am getting here is a huge French vs Americans gun debate.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 03:15:38 pm
There are Germans in there too. And British people.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 23, 2012, 03:23:18 pm
Man that video is terrible... what the fuck with these cops. In France cops are almost afraid to pull out their guns because it would be easy to have the legislation against them even if they point / shoot a suspect / criminal.

you obviously are not aware of the numerous riots (results of policemen killing a youngster "who was running"...and unfortunately for him, he was Arabic so he must have been dangerous to them!!), hardcore racial profiling in the streets, hardcore racial profiling at job applications, police abuse,...  actually there are so many accounts of police shooting "mistakes" in ghettos all around France in the past several decades it's just insane.

you know, you should stop talking about France like it's freaking Wonderland: we got our shares of crazy "cow-boys" & in a lot of cities too!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 23, 2012, 03:31:43 pm
Don't say it like it's a good excuse to NOT ban guns. Someone already made the parallel that since there are still murders or rapes even though those are illegal, then we might as well let them slide legally.
Obviously the problem is people before guns. Obviously the problem is the guy who rapes a child and not sex in general. Obviously it would be better to teach people not to do this and that, to give them a reason not to do it (give them a proper job so they don't need it), and to stop those who just can't help it anyway because of mental problems or whatever. But obviously, that doesn't work / exist.

http://www.comunidadesegura.org/pt-br/node/31297

Data shows that while making strict laws here stricter helped to diminish gun violence at first, it soon climbed to high levels again.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 03:38:36 pm
STILL not an excuse. You're still saying the same thing. Just because a law fails, doesn't make it wrong. There are still rapes and bank robberies, does it mean the law that makes them illegal are wrong ? That's exactly what you're saying with guns : just because people still use them, just because there is still gun violence, doesn't make it right to have a gun.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 03:46:40 pm
What I am getting here is a huge French vs Americans gun debate.

wut
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 03:48:56 pm
There are Germans in there too. And British people.

Brits too? OMG

Lets not forget the brazilian minority as well
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 03:51:34 pm
But Brazil is South America which is America :o
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 03:55:47 pm
^^ And still something veeery different than the USA

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 04:01:48 pm
I know.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 23, 2012, 04:18:21 pm
Man that video is terrible... what the fuck with these cops. In France cops are almost afraid to pull out their guns because it would be easy to have the legislation against them even if they point / shoot a suspect / criminal.

you obviously are not aware of the numerous riots (results of policemen killing a youngster "who was running"...and unfortunately for him, he was Arabic so he must have been dangerous to them!!), hardcore racial profiling in the streets, hardcore racial profiling at job applications, police abuse,...  actually there are so many accounts of police shooting "mistakes" in ghettos all around France in the past several decades it's just insane.

you know, you should stop talking about France like it's freaking Wonderland: we got our shares of crazy "cow-boys" & in a lot of cities too!

Excuse me are you trying to explain me something about my country ? Because before reading your post i actually had no idea what was going on in it. I don't know about our society's issues... never heard of race's related issues neither especially Arabics...

What the fuck is the purpose of your post man..

because i don't say something, it means i say something else ? (i implicitly said France was wonderland ?) No. Stop exagerating a PRESUMED interpretation of my posts.

Next time ASK me  first, about your presumtions, and if you assumed right, then go on. Don't get all worked up starting to tell me i should do this or stop doing that over something you can't even be sure of.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 23, 2012, 05:18:00 pm
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/fight-breaks-out-at-west-homestead-theater-during-the-dark-knight-rises-showing-645763/

Pittsburg has a crowd panicking and running away from the theater after a fight breaks out, if everyone had guns, they could have just shot each other
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 06:09:22 pm
Hmm, it seems (I think) they're only selling "models of weapons and ammunition"?

No, they're the real deal.  Usually museums end up with them, or Veterans Groups or even that cannon in the town square. (not that I wouldnt LOVE to have one with a big sign "Don't even THINK of letting your dog crap on my yard")  But they are real and available for sale.  My Dad's legion post got a tank 4 years ago and a helicopter last year.


MissBhaven -
Sooo... what's with you and guns exactly  ;D

Long boring story, with the moral "it makes me feel safe", and feeling safe is the most important thing in my life.

I live in a rural area and have shot wounded animals that were hit by cars and left to die, racoons with rabies, and venomous snakes.  I live alone and no one will ever come in my house uninvited...  EVER.    I travel for work and if I should ever find myself in a bad situation, I want to be able to defend myself against people bigger, stronger and faster than me (ie:men).  The more people that know I support the NRA and  take full advantage of my constitutional rights, the better I feel about it.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 07:57:37 pm
(http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-379590-galleryV9-mstn.jpg)
hard to see him as the monster he is.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 23, 2012, 08:25:46 pm
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/pillow.png[/avatar]
Bia: Sorry, I actually didn't read the thread in its entirety before I posted. And at this point I'm too lazy for a proper discussion :P
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 08:29:23 pm
Awwww dangit Val and I was gonna invite one of my gun loving friends (she happens to live in Germany by the way) here just to debate.

But I still want that tank.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: XamΣeta on July 23, 2012, 08:54:47 pm
(http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-379590-galleryV9-mstn.jpg)
hard to see him as the monster he is.

Jesus man....I just realized he kinda looks like you.

No offense meant GBK, since this guy is at the top of my douche list and you are pretty much up the with the rest of the people I like in the internet.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: -Red- on July 23, 2012, 08:58:50 pm
http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/213591/158/AMC-Theatres-Bans-Costumes-Masks-Fake-Weapons-After-Colorado-Shooting

hahaha, you guys are hilarious, you ban masks and fake weapons yet carrying real weapons to the theater is fine I guess. Cool.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 23, 2012, 09:05:50 pm
(http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-379590-galleryV9-mstn.jpg)
hard to see him as the monster he is.

Jesus man....I just realized he kinda looks like you.

No offense meant GBK, since this guy is at the top of my douche list and you are pretty much up the with the rest of the people I like in the internet.

Yup, you are right. When i saw this photo i thought so as well and didnt like that. His face is similar to mine, the small sideburns too, and i am glad i wear my hair much shorter and would never color them orange. I have no intentions to do some crap like he did and also have a ton of social contacts while this guy seems to have been pretty isolated.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 23, 2012, 09:16:44 pm
Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty

well, it didn't mean to sound so offensive: it just happened that you were the last one i read mentioning France: it has here been used (imo) as a too good example of some kind of a "perfect" society (or at least it came out that way to me) when it's absolutely not...that's why i also wanted people who wouldn't know that we have the same issues!

sorry if it came out so wrong (i knew a smiley could have been useful)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 23, 2012, 09:49:46 pm
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Bia: Sorry, I actually didn't read the thread in its entirety before I posted. And at this point I'm too lazy for a proper discussion :P

Although Japan has a lower overall crime rate, it really shouldn't be a model to compare the other nations to due to vast cultural differences and the fact that the Japanese were literally bred to hate guns for generations.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 10:03:04 pm
the Japanese were literally bred to hate guns for generations.
And it's not possible to do the same in other countries ? Even if it takes a few generations. Why not start now ? Oh no, can't do that, it's a cultural thing about becoming a man.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: CRIMZON on July 23, 2012, 10:08:17 pm
Exactly, an event such as this can happen anywhere, anytime. Not to be paranoid or anything, but we just gotta be aware and try to prevent things like this.. Damn...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: The Railgunner on July 23, 2012, 10:11:54 pm
The shit thing is that this happened in the town where that fuckwad that stole my girlfriend and my son. If only that guy went for the local UPS warehouse...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 10:32:29 pm
Edit : this is not to be taken 100% seriously, obviously. The author always points out problems in a satirical way.
But what does Obama and Romney being pantless mean? And what do their gloves symbolize???

And yes the question was presuming that the US are more dangerous than EU, because the question was following WHAT MISS CHASTITY SAID. So read back her post preceeding my question, and if you are still outraged, ask her the reasons she made that statement, that logically explains the presumptions in my question.
Bia said nothing about America/Brazil being inherently more dangerous than Europe. She said that banning guns would not completely rid either America or Brazil of guns.

We are talking about all this gun thing but, has the controversy even been discussed seriously in USA ? I don't know if that's a classic theme of debate in USA, just like Immigration and National Identity is in France, that's why I am asking.
Yes. Why wouldn't it be discussed?

No, they're the real deal.  Usually museums end up with them, or Veterans Groups or even that cannon in the town square. (not that I wouldnt LOVE to have one with a big sign "Don't even THINK of letting your dog crap on my yard")  But they are real and available for sale.  My Dad's legion post got a tank 4 years ago and a helicopter last year.
Wait, really? You can just straight up buy a tank with a working cannon, and ammo for that?

That's a terrible idea. :stare:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/213591/158/AMC-Theatres-Bans-Costumes-Masks-Fake-Weapons-After-Colorado-Shooting

hahaha, you guys are hilarious, you ban masks and fake weapons yet carrying real weapons to the theater is fine I guess. Cool.
AMC would probably love to ban guns; however, doing so would get them sued immediately in states with concealed weapon laws.

literally bred to hate guns for generations.
I don't think you know what the words "literally" and "bred" mean.

The shit thing is that this happened in the town where that fuckwad that stole my girlfriend and my son. If only that guy went for the local UPS warehouse...
What?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 10:38:07 pm
Bia said nothing about America/Brazil being inherently more dangerous than Europe. She said that banning guns would not completely rid either America or Brazil of guns.
He was replying to this :
I don't think that none of you who live in Europe need the right to bear arms. You have a more controlled situation there, with borders very well defined, and neighbors you can usually trust. I am glad you have that situation there. Good for you all.

But here, and in the US, situation is quite different. Here any bum can get an illegal gun, and there's nothing I can do about that.
I would feel safer here if I had the right to bear arms and carry a concealed gun, because things are ugly around these parts.
That totally sounds exactly like "the US/Brazil is inherently more dangerous than Europe".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 10:41:59 pm
That's not how I read it.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 23, 2012, 10:44:07 pm
... what.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 10:44:53 pm
AMC would probably love to ban guns; however, doing so would get them sued immediately in states with concealed weapon laws.

Not at all, any business or public gathering place like libraries can ban guns from the premises in Ohio despite the CC law.

(http://picturehoster.info/images/66035339216174741271.jpg)

These signs are everywhere here, not sure about other states though.  And despite what people may think,  responsible gun owners (like me!!!) don't carry weapons everywhere. 

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 10:50:48 pm
... what.
What do you mean, what? It's pretty self-explanatory: my reading of Bia's post was that she was not saying Europe is inherently safer.

Now enough off-topic wankery.

These signs are everywhere here, not sure about other states though.  And despite what people may think,  responsible gun owners (like me!!!) don't carry weapons everywhere. 
Hmm, maybe AMC didn't want to bring the wrath of the NRA upon them (even though laws that permit gun bannings from public places exist). They just want this to go away as quickly as possible so they're doing simple things that will help make people feel safer (while not really resulting in a safer experience) while avoiding any and all possible controversy.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: blackstar on July 23, 2012, 10:53:54 pm
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/283602_4269696511434_544835957_n.jpg)

What do you guys think of this?

I agree but disagree with this I think that if he were from another race then there would be more media and public outrage than there already is but this picture is a exaggeration I don't think he'd be dead yet if he was from another race or the accusations would be as fierce.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 10:55:49 pm
Yeah man every news story in America just goes on about what a great guy he is.

also we never take anyone but white people into custody, if you're not white you get shot when you get caught, it's all there in the constitution
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: The Railgunner on July 23, 2012, 10:57:43 pm
The shit thing is that this happened in the town where that fuckwad that stole my girlfriend and my son. If only that guy went for the local UPS warehouse...
What?

My girlfriend cheated on me, then dumped me, for some fuckstick with a better job and a car from Aurora, Colorado. Then she took my son with her to live with him until I got a better job (a few months). This fucker works at a UPS warehouse or some shit.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 11:06:30 pm
Yeah man every news story in America just goes on about what a great guy he is.

also we never take anyone but white people into custody, if you're not white you get shot when you get caught, it's all there in the constitution

Thats right, article 6.        :rifle:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 11:12:22 pm
My girlfriend cheated on me, then dumped me, for some fuckstick with a better job and a car from Aurora, Colorado. Then she took my son with her to live with him until I got a better job (a few months). This fucker works at a UPS warehouse or some shit.
It's not his fault, it's your girlfriend's fault. Unfortunately (fortunately), it is impossible to "steal" a human being who has free will. Your anger is misdirected and you are wildly, wildly off topic.

Yeah man every news story in America just goes on about what a great guy he is.

also we never take anyone but white people into custody, if you're not white you get shot when you get caught, it's all there in the constitution
Whether it's because of the man's race or not, the image macro has a point. This guy's media coverage consists of a bunch of people romanticizing his life as a student and saying that he was disturbed because he had a mental disorder that couldn't be controlled. A bunch of people making excuses for a mass murderer.

A race issue is plausible when compared to other cases and the history of racism and the persistence of institutionalized racism in America. People might not have sat down and said, "He's white, let's justify his actions," but something is strange about it anyway.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 11:25:26 pm
There are hints of deeper issues in the image macro, but I think those glimpses were all accidental.

Plus, it's an image macro.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 23, 2012, 11:29:41 pm
Rajaa, what are you talking about?  Seung-Hui Cho sure wasnt white and the same things were being said about him.  The press is so hungry for information they're reporting anything and everything anyone says and trying to make a story out of it.  I havent seen anyone making excuses for him anywhere, but I am curious as to why his family have hired a criminal defense lawyer for themselves.

 :S
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 23, 2012, 11:33:36 pm
As I said, it might not have anything to do with race, but it's still strange.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 23, 2012, 11:44:38 pm
People want to make sense out of a tragedy, that's all.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 24, 2012, 12:31:23 am
... what.
What do you mean, what? It's pretty self-explanatory: my reading of Bia's post was that she was not saying Europe is inherently safer.

Aye. Europe have borders that are easier to control, so patrolling them to make sure fewer illegal weapons are smuggled into country is easier. Smaller country are and population helps with that too.
Still, even that won't make Europe safer nor stop crazy people from performing such acts of terror: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/8954366/Liege-shooting-and-grenade-attack-previous-European-incidents-in-last-10-years.html

No matter how hard we try, guns will inevitably find their way to the hands of bad people.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 24, 2012, 12:41:05 am
It took breivik, the norwegian killer, ten years to prepare what this kid in america prepared in four months.

Breivik also tried to get a semi auto to gun down crowds, but the laws in norway prevented him from obtaining one.

It can be dressed up anyway , but the fact is that the american kid got a gun that is able to saw trees with gunfire legally and easily.  And there is something massively wrong with that.


Aye. Europe have borders that are easier to control,
As part of the european union thing, you no longer have border patrols amidst countries of the union.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 24, 2012, 12:51:37 am
As part of the european union thing, you no longer have border patrols amidst countries of the union.

See? They're so freaking easy to control that you don't even patrol your inner borders anymore. :P
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 24, 2012, 01:25:53 am
Well yeah, it's safer. It's not safe because it's easy, it's easy because it's safe.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 24, 2012, 01:33:48 am
You are not french because you are gay, you are gay because you are french.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 24, 2012, 01:34:41 am
It took breivik, the norwegian killer, ten years to prepare what this kid in america prepared in four months.
God. Fucking. Dammit.


The A.V. Club said:
Out of respect for the victims and their families, Warner Bros. vowed to not release the weekend grosses for the film, a gesture that was quickly answered by its fellow studios, as well as box-office reporting company Rentrak and the web's primary source for those numbers, Box Office Mojo.
Umm... ok? Is that really necessary though? I personally don't think the box office numbers are going to affect the victims and their families.

also, related (http://www.theonion.com/articles/nra-please-try-to-remember-all-the-wonderful-thing,28858/)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 24, 2012, 01:40:59 am
How many americans have been saved from starvation in the past 20 years because of guns ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TempesT on July 24, 2012, 02:39:06 am
Umm... ok? Is that really necessary though? I personally don't think the box office numbers are going to affect the victims and their families.
Nobody wanted to say the movie made a killing.
Or that the movie blew up at the box office.

But I could take a shot in the dark and say it did really well.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 24, 2012, 02:44:49 am
I was hoping it would bomb. This wasn't actually what i had in mind.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 24, 2012, 03:00:47 am
despite-a-few-jitters-batman-fans-pack-theaters
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: MDD on July 24, 2012, 04:02:10 am
Wait. Wait wait wait.  Someone explain to me how this guy is still just a suspect? Like, WTF is this.

Also, the Joker's hair is green. Sorry James. (http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/pXc7XHbp1dT.re9q3lngZQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thelookout/james-homes-court-dazed.jpg)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 24, 2012, 04:02:38 am
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/283602_4269696511434_544835957_n.jpg)

Guess what!

He is going to get served at the minimum life sentence for what he had done.

A maniac who shot up and killed people?

Good bye to your freedom forever!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 24, 2012, 04:20:16 am
i was watching CNN today (and some Canadian TV news) and one of the big talk was whether the death penalty will be considered or not by the prosecutors (last time death sentence was applied was in 1997 in that state, from wikipedia) and if the defense would then plead insanity, which would be his only way of avoiding death anyway.

the thing is: when you coldly & methodically prepare a mass slaughter of that level in a few months (going as far as wanting to take shooting lessons and booby-trapping your own house...), i personally don't think you are under some psychosis or any kind of dementia: you knew you wanted to kill as much as you could and just for that, insanity plea shouldn't even be an option.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 24, 2012, 04:26:19 am
Wait. Wait wait wait.  Someone explain to me how this guy is still just a suspect? Like, WTF is this.
Every news story I've read/heard recently has never used "suspect".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Chronan on July 24, 2012, 05:45:52 am
I'd assume there was like one or two stations that may have called him a suspect after the fact -or- more likely while the story was still brand new and hot off the camera, reporters properly referred to "a suspect" being brought into custody or some such thing. Anything about the media calling him nothing more than a suspect now is likely a sensationalized news story on bad America or angsty euro-teens from the looks of it. :)
Alternatively, it could be one of those smoking hot blonde reporters (male or female), who's only purpose in news is to be a pretty face and of course has no idea what they are talking about 50% of the time. (50% clueless about actual serious issues, 50% clued in celebrity scandals and how bad kids are sexting, and they secretly are too but not telling anyone)

I'd at least give the media credit for saying, "Yeah, he seemed pretty normal, TIL HE FUCKING KILLED PEOPLE." Instead of the good ol', "He was a social outcast who played violent video games like WARcraft and listened to satanic music like Cha-la Head-Cha-la!"
Black or white, the media usually shits all over these people, though in different ways due to different races. Normally, you'd have to wait on the biography to come out on A&E later about their upbringing and roots, which will still go out of their way to demonize the person(and rightfully so), while sparing the family if need be. Attractive, white, females get the sad story and constant benefit of the doubt. The system is a racism/sexism/hotness combo, because white women are all evil! This is actually true though, I dated a hot white girl->woman for 6 years, she was totally evil. Therefore fuck white women and their control of the system!  >:(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 24, 2012, 09:07:01 am
Here in germany all stations, newspapers etc call him the suspect.

Me and also my gf and people in german forums wonder about this since it is so clear that he is the murderer
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 24, 2012, 09:13:53 am
Hmm, is it fair to refer to him as the murderer before he has been tried?  What if he had confessed? :S
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 24, 2012, 09:15:11 am
@ GBK : Because of (or thanks to) something called "Presumption of innocence".
As long as he hasn't been recognized guilty during the trial, he's considered innocent, thus is only a suspect, even if all "proofs" converge towards him.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 24, 2012, 09:16:05 am
In this case regardless of anything you are still innocent until proven guilty. Despite the fact i believe he IS guilty i will actually respect that under rule of law he's not guilty until pronounced so.

(unlike our stupid piracy law where you need to prove innocence rather than disprove guilt, fuckers)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: "Bad News" Hoffmann on July 24, 2012, 09:19:28 am
@ GBK : Because of (or thanks to) something called "Presumption of innocence".
As long as he hasn't been recognized guilty during the trial, he's considered innocent, thus is only a suspect, even if all "proofs" converge towards him.

Yeah i know, its the normal process, but it wonders me because in this case it is 100% clear he was it. It wondered other people here in germans too, they call the press laughable
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 24, 2012, 09:33:15 am
You're not supposed to talk about a culprit until there's a conviction, period. It's supposed to always be a suspect until the trial is over. It's just how it works, it doesn't matter if he did it right in front of the police or what.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Flamme the Creepy Sensei on July 24, 2012, 09:34:41 am
Wait. Wait wait wait.  Someone explain to me how this guy is still just a suspect? Like, WTF is this.

Also, the Joker's hair is green. Sorry James. (http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/pXc7XHbp1dT.re9q3lngZQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thelookout/james-homes-court-dazed.jpg)

 It's a reference to this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG1tWQN6e8)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 24, 2012, 01:51:54 pm
Yeah i know, its the normal process, but it wonders me because in this case it is 100% clear he was it. It wondered other people here in germans too, they call the press laughable

they probably talk about "mutmaßlicher mörder", and it makes perfect sense. Whether someone is guilty or not is for the judicative to decide, and noone else. besides, if you describe someone as murderer early and you are wrong, that's slander. working with facts instead of "lololo everyone knows he did it" is not laughable, it's professionalism.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/critical.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 24, 2012, 02:13:48 pm
Nice face Twilight.

On a more serious note, what purpose does rigging your apartment with explosives serve?

If those goes off with policemen inside, they could get hurt or killed, causing him to be charged with injuring/killing a policeman, which is almost an automatic life sentence, if not the death penalty.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 24, 2012, 02:23:49 pm
:stare:

are you for real
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 24, 2012, 03:02:39 pm
If you imagine that's an actual pikachu posting that he seems pretty clever (for a pikachu).
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 24, 2012, 03:28:43 pm
Well, in a sense... If the shooting had failed but the bombing worked, it would have gotten him life sentence/death penalty for just one cop ; so just in case the shooting had failed, he didn't need the bombing, it could have gotten him a lighter sentence just for murder attempt, possibly.

But yeah, considering he planned this for months and it was about shooting random people in a theater and he had this determination, this kind of safety is not something he'd give a damn about, it's the least of his problems.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: LM_MAVERIK on July 24, 2012, 03:30:53 pm
If you imagine that's an actual pikachu posting that he seems pretty clever (for a pikachu).

I gotta say I found this hilarious.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 24, 2012, 03:53:30 pm
Yes, I'm a Pikachu.

I am cute and fluffy.

And I can blow up your computers with raw electricity, so beware.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: GOH on July 24, 2012, 04:11:00 pm
Okay I'm kinda scared now.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 24, 2012, 05:14:49 pm
Okay I'm kinda scared now.

You should because I am thinking about frying your computers for dissing me.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 24, 2012, 05:36:43 pm
sorry little yellow rodent but my cactus says no.
Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty

back on topic : so what do you think his sentence will be? death or life time imprisonment?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 24, 2012, 05:39:47 pm
sorry little yellow rodent but my cactus says no.
Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty

back on topic : so what do you think his sentence will be? death or life time imprisonment?

Most certainly a lengthy sentence. Life Imprisonment is extremely likely but the Death Sentence is also a possibility.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 24, 2012, 05:47:39 pm
DIdn't this happen in Colorado? I think they don't have death sentence there?[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/bookreading.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 24, 2012, 06:12:53 pm
Colorado has only executed one person since 1977, in the year 1997. There are three people currently that have been sentenced with death, though.

And the weird thing is, those three people were convicted for murders commited in the same town. The same town that this shooting happened in.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: MDD on July 24, 2012, 09:48:33 pm
ILLUMINATI
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 24, 2012, 09:58:03 pm
:flipout:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: MDD on July 25, 2012, 12:37:23 am
Christian Bale is awesome. (http://www.denverpost.com/theatershooting/ci_21147699/christian-bale-town-visiting-victims-shooting)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 25, 2012, 02:37:19 am
That is really classy of him to do. :)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: SlySuavity on July 25, 2012, 03:17:15 am
I never really cared for Bale since the Terminator Salvation tirade, but this definitely redeems him in my eyes. Class indeed.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: ShiroTori on July 25, 2012, 03:29:06 am
It was very nice of Bale to pay those people a visit.

He didn't even have to do this, he chose to. That kind of thinking deserves much respect. :)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 25, 2012, 04:53:13 am
We've all talked about guns and stuff, but what does Batman think of this?
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7gtyxyMYa1qhmu4uo1_400.jpg)
wise words
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on July 25, 2012, 06:25:10 am
I think toy'r us should have given big BIG discount on BB replica guns, for these role players.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cazaki on July 25, 2012, 07:40:25 am
I can't pair up a Kevin Conroy tone for those very italian italics.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 02:12:59 pm
Dunno if this was posted : guns are not dangerous. Instead, let's ban costumes !!!

http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/the-dark-knight-rises-costumes-ban/

Indeed, the problem is definitely the Catwoman cosplaying...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 25, 2012, 02:17:49 pm
That's not what's happening at all. That's just a precaution to prevent copycat-murders and to prevent people from panicking over the sensitivity of the recent mass murder. What is wrong with you.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TempesT on July 25, 2012, 02:21:45 pm
It's so much easier to think of the bans as completely ridiculous and stupid though, why think logically about it when you can just point out how ineffective the US is at everything?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 25, 2012, 02:51:08 pm
It's so much easier to think of the bans as completely ridiculous and stupid though, why think logically about it when you can just point out how ineffective the US is at everything?

Now, do not say that the United States is ineffective at everything!
Think about it: despite our gun-happy culture, there are many areas where there are really few shooting deaths, like my town here.
Try not to stereotype us as much as possible.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 25, 2012, 02:58:56 pm
There's a point at which misinterpreting posts becomes obnoxious. If you have a reading disability or something, maybe you need to take a few more minutes to grasp the meaning of posts. Or maybe you can just ask what the meanings of posts are so you can avoid making stroke-inducing posts.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 03:53:52 pm
That's just a precaution to prevent copycat-murders and to prevent people from panicking over the sensitivity of the recent mass murder. What is wrong with you.
That's stupid. You don't ban cosplaying because some guy had orange hair when killing people.
You don't ban World of Warcraft in Norway because Breivik played the game before killing people.
You don't ban motorcycles because the guy in France killed people while on his motorcycle.

"In prevention of what happended during 9/11, we will now stop selling Flight Simulator and ban planes". They're attacking the problem as if the problem was cosplaying, same thing as they're targeting video games each time a youngster is violent.

"Sensitivity of the mass murder ?" What the hell is that ? Are people seriously thinking another psycho is going to shoot people during DKR ? If people are so scared of seeing some guy cosplaying in Bane, then there seriously is a problem. If people are just scared of going to see DKR, might as well not go and wait for the Bluray version, or watch another movie. Let the people who want to see the movie be happy and have fun while seeing the movie, not restrict them for some sensitivity bullshit reason.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 25, 2012, 04:05:44 pm
There's a point at which misinterpreting posts becomes obnoxious. If you have a reading disability or something, maybe you need to take a few more minutes to grasp the meaning of posts. Or maybe you can just ask what the meanings of posts are so you can avoid making stroke-inducing posts.

shall I call 911 ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 25, 2012, 04:07:28 pm
There's a point at which misinterpreting posts becomes obnoxious. If you have a reading disability or something, maybe you need to take a few more minutes to grasp the meaning of posts. Or maybe you can just ask what the meanings of posts are so you can avoid making stroke-inducing posts.
I do not have a reading disability. My last post focused on the statement: "you can just point out how ineffective the US is at everything".
That phrase sounds like that it is easy to point out that the US is ineffective at everything. That is stereotyping, no matter how insignificant.

I also get the general vibe that the foreigners think Americans are stupid because of the lack of gun control laws here. I just wanted to provide a counter example that proves that just because we have many guns here does not mean that we are completely violent.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 25, 2012, 04:12:13 pm
That's stupid. You don't ban cosplaying because some guy had orange hair when killing people.
Recently, a guy dressed up in a costume, went to a Batman movie, and killed people. Costumes are banned for that moive to be sensitive to the issue for people who may have concerns or traumas.

You don't ban World of Warcraft in Norway because Breivik played the game before killing people.
This isn't a game. A guy, in real life, dressed up as a Batman character, and killed people in the theater of a Batman movie.

You don't ban motorcycles because the guy in France killed people while on his motorcycle.
You're being ridiculous now. A Batman costume is directly related to a Batman movie.

"In prevention of what happended during 9/11, we will now stop selling Flight Simulator and ban planes". They're attacking the problem as if the problem was cosplaying, same thing as they're targeting video games each time a youngster is violent.
9/11 was organized by terrorists. The United States, as a result to the tradegy, has made plenty of changes to its system to reflect the mistakes made on 9/11. Many things were banned from airplanes. If you can prove that the terrorists used flight simulation games to prepare for 9/11, then maybe you should be working for the FBI, instead of posting on a Mugen forum.

They aren't blaming the costume, they're banning the costume because the costume is related to a recent tragedy. Why are you so blinded by your obsession with trying to make anything American look bad?

"Sensitivity of the mass murder ?" What the hell is that ? Are people seriously thinking another psycho is going to shoot people during DKR ? If people are so scared of seeing some guy cosplaying in Bane, then there seriously is a problem.
Recently, a guy dressed up in a costume, went to a Batman movie, and killed people. Costumes are banned for that moive to be sensitive to the issue for people who may have concerns or traumas.

If people are just scared of going to see DKR, might as well not go and wait for the Bluray version, or watch another movie. Let the people who want to see the movie be happy and have fun while seeing the movie, not restrict them for some sensitivity bullshit reason.
... Speechlessness.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 25, 2012, 04:31:05 pm
I do not have a reading disability. My last post focused on the statement: "you can just point out how ineffective the US is at everything".
That phrase sounds like that it is easy to point out that the US is ineffective at everything. That is stereotyping, no matter how insignificant.
You do have a problem in reading post since you missed the obvious sarcasm and you replied to it as if it was serious.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 04:40:40 pm
Quote
This isn't a game. A guy, in real life, dressed up as a Batman character, and killed people in the theater of a Batman movie.
Because it was a game when Breivik killed those people ? He used WoW in his plan to kill them, as a mean to do stuff.

Quote
You're being ridiculous now. A Batman costume is directly related to a Batman movie.
So I guess I can go there dressed as Superman ?

Quote
If you can prove that the terrorists used flight simulation games to prepare for 9/11, then maybe you should be working for the FBI, instead of posting on a Mugen forum.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5224099/ns/us_news-security/t/commission-staff-statement-no/#.UBAApRAjHXs
Ctrl+F > flight simulator

Quote
They aren't blaming the costume, they're banning the costume because the costume is related to a recent tragedy. Why are you so blinded by your obsession with trying to make anything American look bad?
I can talk about how France is bad and keep creating laws that they can't enforce. Speed radar warning devices are forbidden now, but policemen have no right to actually check your car or your phone to see if you have one => useless law.
However, the topic at hand isn't about how France is bad, but about "let's be sensitive with traumatized people and ban cosplay".

Quote
Recently, a guy dressed up in a costume, went to a Batman movie, and killed people. Costumes are banned for that moive to be sensitive to the issue for people who may have concerns or traumas.
Why should I care ? Why should people care ? Next time a psycho goes to Disneyland dressed as Mickey Mouse and kills people, maybe they'll ban Mickey cosplays from Disneyland !? Oh wait !!!
Maybe they could put security agents checking if people don't have weapons in the cinema. But no, let's ban costumes instead.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 25, 2012, 04:43:52 pm
You're just an insensitive jerk. I can definitely relate, but at least I can understand the reasoning behind sensitivity for tragedies like this. :blank:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 05:02:26 pm
I'm sensitive for the victims and families, who went there to see a movie and got shot or lost somebody in the tragedy.

I am not for all the surrounding bullshit happening because of that.
French gala cancelled ? Bullshit.
Not showing the box office ? Bullshit.
Banning costumes ? Bullshit.

Because of things like that, people are likely to associate the costume and the Batman movie itself as one of the reasons of this drama, while it has nothing to do with it. The killer happened to be dressed as the Joker, because he was fan of the Batman Universe ? Big. Fucking. Deal. It's not Batman's fault, it's not Nolan's fault, it's not the costume's fault, and anybody associating the movie or the costume to the tragedy itself, as a reason for said tragedy, is wrong. He could have very well done the same thing during a Disney movie.

Tighten security, check for weapons, do something useful. Not this kind of stuff.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 25, 2012, 05:05:55 pm
why the hell would you watch batman in a batman costume? i mean people would understand if they temporarily ban costumes from cinemas.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 05:11:27 pm
Same reason people go see Star Wars movies dressed as Darth Vader or with a laser weapon ? Same reason people cosplay during ComiCon or an Anime event ? Same reason kids get Donald Duck masks when going to Disneyland ?

Not saying I'm doing it (I'm not), but I can perfectly understand why a fan would want to.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 25, 2012, 05:17:23 pm
I can perfectly understand why a fan would want to.
But you can't understand why a movie theater would want to ban costumes in their Batman theaters after a mass murder dressed as a Batman character in a Batman theater killed and injured over 70 people?

:haw:

http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/the-dark-knight-rises-costumes-ban/ said:
"We will not allow any guests into our theaters in costumes that make other guests feel uncomfortable and we will not permit face-covering masks or fake weapons inside our buildings."

If you can't understand that, then it's not insensitivity that's your problem.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 25, 2012, 05:18:43 pm
banning costumes is a sensible choice. some shithead in what looked like a costume did a mass murder during the movie. therefore some people would feel uncomfortable if they saw someone in a costume during the movie.

Tighten security, check for weapons, do something useful. Not this kind of stuff.
yeah man they're definitely not doing any of that now. you can walk in with a shotgun but god forbid you wear a costume!!! stupid americans
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 25, 2012, 05:19:49 pm
comic conventions are different you go there interact with people, dressing up as a character is pretty normal in events like that no cosplay it'll be a boring conventions.
in movies you go there, watch in dark room you don't go ei look at my tie it's glowing in dark or act like the characters shouting their catchphrases while the show is on.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 05:33:44 pm
@ Rajaa :  ::)

Because of things like that, people are likely to associate the costume and the Batman movie itself as one of the reasons of this drama, while it has nothing to do with it. The killer happened to be dressed as the Joker, because he was fan of the Batman Universe ? Big. Fucking. Deal. It's not Batman's fault, it's not Nolan's fault, it's not the costume's fault, and anybody associating the movie or the costume to the tragedy itself, as a reason for said tragedy, is wrong. He could have very well done the same thing during a Disney movie.

Tighten security, check for weapons, do something useful. Not this kind of stuff.

Fans who want to cosplay will just go to theaters who are not AMC theaters then.



some shithead in what looked like a costume did a mass murder during the movie. therefore some people would feel uncomfortable if they saw someone in a costume during the movie.
some shithead with probably psychiatric problems did a mass murder with a semi-automatic assault rifle. therefore, as the problem isn't the guy nor the gun, we will ban batman costumes.

you can walk in with a shotgun !! stupid americans
Funny, that's somehow what happened. ::)

But yeah, I read they're tightening security, so at least they're doing something right.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 25, 2012, 05:49:50 pm
i don't know why you requoted yourself as if it helped your argument. several people watching the movie and seeing people in costumes will not feel comfortable after what happened. it would limit their enjoyment severely. it would also be a really insensible thing to do. why is this a hard concept to understand
Quote
some shithead with probably psychiatric problems did a mass murder with a semi-automatic assault rifle. therefore, as the problem isn't the guy nor the gun, we will ban batman costumes.
oh youre still thinking that people are allowed to walk in with assault rifles into movies. that if a guy wearing a joker costume and a guy carring a shotgun bought tickets then only the costume guy would be stopped. yeah, ok
Quote
Funny, that's somehow what happened. ::)
yeah, he just walked in like a normal customer. that's literally what happened. staff saw him with all those guns and thought "this is america and guns are cool as hell dude, enjoy your movie". it's not like he broke in through an emergency exit or anything like that.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 25, 2012, 06:01:04 pm
Colorado has concealed carry permits ( which the guy had) so he couldnt walk around showing those guns, if he wanted to walk around with them they would have to be hidden in a dufflebag or something.

Its the same kind of permit that Zimmerman had when he shot that kid, trayvon a few months ago, it doesnt allow you to display guns like that, you can just carry them as long as they are hidden from public view to avoid panic.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 06:26:40 pm
i don't know why you requoted yourself as if it helped your argument.
I'm quoting myself because that's the answer to Rajaa's post, and I'm not going to rephrase it.

several people watching the movie and seeing people in costumes will not feel comfortable after what happened. it would limit their enjoyment severely. it would also be a really insensible thing to do. why is this a hard concept to understand
Poor babies !!! :bigcry:
Single people feel uncomfortable when they see couples kissing in the cinema. Maybe we should ban kissing in the cinema.
It irks me when I hear people eating pop-corn during a movie. Maybe we should ban pop corn from cinemas.
I feel uncomfortable when a fat guy/girl seats beside me in a cinema or a plane. Maybe we should ban them from cinemas or make them pay 2 places.

Banning costumes is like stigmatizing. By bannig costumes, you're legally saying "You wear a costume = you're a potential threat to me and it makes me uncomfortable."
That's how Muslims were threated after 9/11. That's how Arabs are threated in France (you're Arabic = you're a thief).
Hey, big news : not all people wearing Batman costumes are mass killers! Not all Muslims are suicide bombers! Not all Arabs are thieves! True story. You don't need to fear them.

Quote
some shithead with probably psychiatric problems did a mass murder with a semi-automatic assault rifle. therefore, as the problem isn't the guy nor the gun, we will ban batman costumes.
oh youre still thinking that people are allowed to walk in with assault rifles into movies. that if a guy wearing a joker costume and a guy carring a shotgun bought tickets then only the costume guy would be stopped. yeah, ok
Quote
Funny, that's somehow what happened. ::)
yeah, he just walked in like a normal customer. that's literally what happened. staff saw him with all those guns and thought "this is america and guns are cool as hell dude, enjoy your movie". it's not like he broke in through an emergency exit or anything like that.
Oh !!! So banning Batman related costumes is surely going to prevent this from happening ? Yeah, ok.
Or maybe they could control weapons and treat the psychos, instead. Just an idea.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 25, 2012, 06:40:03 pm
Its obvious why they are banning them for now, the guy was dressed in the costume and people are afraid of copycats, someone wearing a bane costume right now to a movie screening will be taunting the audience and conflict might happen, its understandable why they are taking precautions.

Although i admit there are more pressing matters than the costumes, i can see why they would try to cut down on those for the moment.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 07:12:25 pm
Actually, I probably wouldn't even care for the damn costumes if they had something called "sense of priorities". But nope.

On a random note, I'll be watching the movie tonight. Should I call the police if somebody is wearing a costume ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 25, 2012, 07:20:19 pm
is about hurting sensibilities after a tragedy. Would you want your snowflake dressing as joker after someone claimming to be the joker killed a bunch of people? Others might be offended and punch you a couple of times over it.
In the same manner after nine eleven you didnt see arab costumes being sold over the counter, they were afraid of a- people getting upset b- people getting into the suits to upset others.

Just because you wouldnt see it as offensive, doesnt mean others wouldnt.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 07:30:31 pm
In the same manner after nine eleven you didnt see arab costumes being sold over the counter, they were afraid of a- people getting upset b- people getting into the suits to upset others.
It's worst than that. Many muslims and arabs were threated as potential terrorists. People who could walk in the streets before were threatened.
They also sent many people to jail on the simple fact that "they looked like someone who could maybe have some affiliation to a neighbour who's cousin once sold a burger to the wife of a member of Al Kaida".

Fear is a powerful weapon. Stop stigmatizing people.

You're blond, you must be stupid.
You wear sexy clothes, you must be a whore.
You're muslim, you must be a terrorist.
You're gay, you're gay haha.
You're black, you must be a gangster.
You're wearing a joker costume, you're mocking our dead / you're a mass murderer.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 25, 2012, 07:40:43 pm
Wow. This has nothing to do with stereotypes and you're bringing in some really dumb examples to try to back up your failed argument. No one is saying everyone in a Batman costume is a murderer. This is a specific instance in which someone in a Batman costume shot a bunch of people in a movie theater. Banning costumes in the movie theater for a while is perfectly understandable and acceptable until the tragedy passes over the minds of people.

I don't understand why you are still making an argument to oppose this. You're pulling at straws, dude. First a video game example, then a 9/11 example, now you're comparing a specific instance of reasonable discrimination to a bunch of long-lived stereotypes that will persist long after the tragedy in Colorado fades. Are you that desperate?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 25, 2012, 07:49:13 pm
Understandable doesn't mean right. I understand why they would want that, but fuck them anyway.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 25, 2012, 07:49:42 pm
Yeah, maybe ...

Banning costumes in the movie theater for a while is perfectly understandable and acceptable until the tragedy passes over the minds of people.
But why doesn't the Colorado state do something to at least regulate weapons ? It's like Columbine never happened and they learned nothing in the process. History repeating itself, over and over again.
And let's not get back to this "it's the man, not the weapon's fault" argument. Because then the Colorado state should be treating everybody, since this means they have a high concentration of psychos.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 25, 2012, 07:53:01 pm
sexual, racial and religious discrimination are in no way comparable to some idiot choosing to wear or not to wear a stupid costume to a movie and being thrown out because of it. also changing gun law in a state takes a lot more time and thought than banning costumes from a theater for a limited amount of time, which has very little effect on society compared to changing gun laws
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 25, 2012, 07:55:03 pm
But why doesn't the Colorado state do something to at least regulate weapons ? It's like Columbine never happened and they learned nothing in the process. History repeating itself, over and over again.

Because it's frickin' difficult on a lot of levels.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/lookup.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 25, 2012, 08:00:22 pm
Understandable doesn't mean right. I understand why they would want that, but fuck them anyway.
So are you saying it is wrong for a movie theater to ban costumes from being worn inside of it? Sorry, but a costume is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, or gender.

But why doesn't the Colorado state do something to at least regulate weapons ? It's like Columbine never happened and they learned nothing in the process. History repeating itself, over and over again.

Firstly, twice is not "over and over again." Secondly, a movie theater is not Colorado itself. And it's not easy to just change gun laws. There are people who want guns and this a democracy. If you're so concerned, raise gun awareness in Colorado so that during the proceeding elections people may vote for officials who want stricter gun control. Not everyone agrees with your point of view, no matter how logical you think it is.

And let's not get back to this "it's the man, not the weapon's fault" argument.
Yeah, let's not.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 25, 2012, 08:03:06 pm
Understandable doesn't mean right. I understand why they would want that, but fuck them anyway.
So are you saying it is wrong for a movie theater to ban costumes from being worn inside of it? Sorry, but a costume is not a race, religion, ethnicity, sex, or gender.
It's not even what I'm saying at all.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on July 25, 2012, 08:04:31 pm
Um. That's why I asked you what you meant. :blank:

But forget it now.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 25, 2012, 08:09:52 pm
Two points I see here:[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/whatsthis.png[/avatar]

"Banning" those costumes is a perfectly logical decision for the theater, because they don't want customers(!) to be afraid or reminded of bad things on their visits. They're running a business there, after all.

People from other countries are of course all over that bit of news, because "batman costumes banned, psychokiller problem fixed lololo" sounds silly in just the right way to mock the US for their backwards gun laws.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on July 25, 2012, 08:16:03 pm
Quote
People from other countries are of course all over that bit of news, because "batman costumes banned, psychokiller problem fixed lololo" sounds silly in just the right way to mock the US for their backwards gun laws.

pretty much resumes it all lol. It's understandable of course, but from where we, foreigners, are standing, it looks a bit laughable despite all.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 25, 2012, 08:45:48 pm
Next time a psycho goes to Disneyland dressed as Mickey Mouse and kills people, maybe they'll ban Mickey cosplays from Disneyland !? Oh wait !!!
Actually, they would. For a while. They'd probably get rid of all their costumed mascots too, then slowly reintroduce them.

Maybe they could put security agents checking if people don't have weapons in the cinema. But no, let's ban costumes instead.
Hey remember when the asshole who did the shootings didn't come in the front entrance but instead came in through a fire escape?

I'm sensitive for the victims and families, who went there to see a movie and got shot or lost somebody in the tragedy.

I am not for all the surrounding bullshit happening because of that.
French gala cancelled ? Bullshit.
Not showing the box office ? Bullshit.
Banning costumes ? Bullshit.
It's called trying to be sensitive to the victims and their families. You may think it's going to far, but the people in charge obviously do and it's their right to do so.

Fans who want to cosplay will just go to theaters who are not AMC theaters then.
Exactly. So what's the problem then?

He could have very well done the same thing during a Disney movie.
And they'd be banning costumes for that movie too.

some shithead with probably psychiatric problems did a mass murder with a semi-automatic assault rifle. therefore, as the problem isn't the guy nor the gun, we will ban batman costumes.
No one is saying that. Why do you think anyone is saying this?

Poor babies !!! :bigcry:
Single people feel uncomfortable when they see couples kissing in the cinema. Maybe we should ban kissing in the cinema.
It irks me when I hear people eating pop-corn during a movie. Maybe we should ban pop corn from cinemas.
I feel uncomfortable when a fat guy/girl seats beside me in a cinema or a plane. Maybe we should ban them from cinemas or make them pay 2 places.
Are you fucking serious? No, it's nothing like any of those things, Jesus Christ. None of your terrible examples have to do with a fucking massacre that took place in a movie theater. Those are all just petty annoyances, not things that would actually inspire fear in some people.

Banning costumes is like stigmatizing. By bannig costumes, you're legally saying "You wear a costume = you're a potential threat to me and it makes me uncomfortable."
That's how Muslims were threated after 9/11. That's how Arabs are threated in France (you're Arabic = you're a thief).
How the fuck is banning costumes from one movie by one movie theater company legally saying that costumes are bad.

Oh !!! So banning Batman related costumes is surely going to prevent this from happening ? Yeah, ok.
Or maybe they could control weapons and treat the psychos, instead. Just an idea.
No, you dumb idiot. AMC banning costumes isn't meant to stop this from happening, it's just something they're doing to make sure their customers don't feel uncomfortable during a screening. Because uncomfortable customers might walk out of that screening and demand a refund, which AMC wants to prevent.

AMC's job isn't to control weapons or treat psychos. It's to sell movie tickets and provide a place where people can watch said movie without feeling threatened. And that's why they banned costumes and beefed up security.

Spoiler: boring nonsense (click to see content)
I don't even know why you keep repeating this spiel because it has nothing to do with a private company banning costumes from a single movie.

But yeah go ahead and continue to tell us why this is the exact same thing as racism.

All AMC is doing is not allowing people wearing costumes to one movie, because it would make some people uncomfortable. AMC isn't trying to solve the problems of our gun laws or anything, because it's not their fucking job.

But why doesn't the Colorado state do something to at least regulate weapons ? It's like Columbine never happened and they learned nothing in the process. History repeating itself, over and over again.
They do regulate weapons. You might feel like they aren't regulated enough (I certainly think so as well), but most people in Colorado think it's at a reasonable level. And changing their minds takes a time and effort.

Also, it's not AMC Theater's job to do that.

People from other countries are of course all over that bit of news, because "batman costumes banned, psychokiller problem fixed lololo" sounds silly in just the right way to mock the US for their backwards gun laws.
No one has said anything like that, ever. Nobody thinks it's solving any problems besides making certain people more comfortable in a movie theater.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 25, 2012, 08:50:54 pm
People from other countries are of course all over that bit of news, because "batman costumes banned, psychokiller problem fixed lololo" sounds silly in just the right way to mock the US for their backwards gun laws.
No one has said anything like that, ever.

Yes, and neither did I. Note the quotation marks.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/hugs.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 25, 2012, 09:06:05 pm
Who are you quoting?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 25, 2012, 09:07:33 pm
Noone in particular. Does it matter? :hugoi:[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/hmmm.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 25, 2012, 09:08:24 pm
i think he's kind of quoting the way some people (like cybaster) are perceiving that news bit, "stupid americans ban costumes instead of guns like it's going to solve the problem"
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 25, 2012, 09:41:05 pm
I still find it interesting and somewhat horrifying that people defending the right to carry weapons are ignoring the grading system most countries have.

Breivik took ten years to find the supplies for his massacre because amidst other things, semi autos were banned on his country, but this kid found his guns in less than four months. That says a lot about the problem.
Why does rajaa, or missb, or jmorphman, need the right to be able to carry a semi auto? Or a grenade launcher? or any other type of weapon?

In my backwaters country we grade weapons in four classes.
Military grade, or war weapons, those are weapons that are used during war situations or by special organized forces, it includes semi autos and autos, also several kinds of rifle. -only military or police can get them legally.

Defense grade, or protection weapons, those include revolvers and pistols. -anyone can get them legally but they have to get a permit to carry them.

Hunting grade, self explanatory. -you need a permit to carry them.

Olympic grade- usuallly used during events, those are for stuff like plate shooting and target practice, requires a specific permit.

You can also carry any hunting grade weapons at home without a permit and one (1 ) defense weapon without permit at home

Why do most americans in this thread seem to think that getting a semi auto is a perfectly normal thing to happen?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 25, 2012, 09:44:04 pm
Some of them have already said they didn't think "it's normal" - but they also have dodged the subject of what they thought it was.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 25, 2012, 09:47:10 pm
Defense grade, or protection weapons, those include revolvers and pistols. -anyone can get them legally but they have to get a permit to carry them.
Why do most americans in this thread seem to think that getting a semi auto is a perfectly normal thing to happen?

aren't revolvers and pistols semi-automatic weapons? :thinking:[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/huh2.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on July 25, 2012, 09:51:59 pm
Defense grade, or protection weapons, those include revolvers and pistols. -anyone can get them legally but they have to get a permit to carry them.
Why do most americans in this thread seem to think that getting a semi auto is a perfectly normal thing to happen?

aren't revolvers and pistols semi-automatic weapons? :thinking:

Revolvers are not semi-auto since you still need to pull back the hammer before each shot. Pistols are since they fire one shot per pull of the trigger without a secondary action.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 25, 2012, 09:55:08 pm
Defense grade, or protection weapons, those include revolvers and pistols. -anyone can get them legally but they have to get a permit to carry them.
Why do most americans in this thread seem to think that getting a semi auto is a perfectly normal thing to happen?

aren't revolvers and pistols semi-automatic weapons? :thinking:
I was referring to the semi auto rifle the joker guy used.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bad Mr. Basara on July 25, 2012, 10:17:25 pm
I read almost all the thread after the news was posted in first pages, and this has becoming "the guns discussion", so I think this thread should be renamed like that. Almost 20 pages just reading about if guns should be banned, and I didn't count the "US vs Europe" or the "Rajaa vs Jeanbureau" (a.k.a. the "you're dumb" thread) shitposting, almost nothing about the news itself (except about Bale visiting victims, he's a real hero)

People, this fucker isn't the first in making a massacre like this in US, I saw that kind of thing a lot of times, and every fucking time the laws about guns are put in discussion, and every fucking time that goes to nothing. The fault isn't from guns, but people. In my country, buying a gun isn't so easy as in US, but it's possible. But instead get psychos who make that kind of massacre like in past DKR premiere (there're very very few cases in Chile, like this one, translated via Google (http://translate.google.cl/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lanacion.cl%2Fmasacre-en-maipu-deja-en-shock-a-pasajeros%2Fnoticias%2F2011-07-17%2F212754.html&act=url)), delinquents steal guns from people and use against them, not counting the hand-made ones they made (called as "hechizas" here), that's why it's dangerous having a gun in my country

I don't know, maybe split the "guns discussion" and the real news should be clever, but that probably won't happen. Here was my 2 cents...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 25, 2012, 10:56:20 pm
Nobody sensible thinks guns should be banned! That won't achieve shit. More regulation yes (or even sensible regulation that removes certain types of weapon from having it in your house) but not banning.

You could keep lots of the culture alive in america (in terms of trying out different weapons) simply with specialised gun ranges, they'd be subject to a LOT of scrutiny in terms of inspectors etc and regular audits, but if you wanted to fire a full auto or a minigun, that's where you go. I think some states have that (i'm sure someone will correct me) and it's not a bad idea.

Carrying a single shot rifle or a small pistol should be all you need if protection is required and enhancing background checks and limiting where you can buy them (once more specialised stores) would go a long way towards improving things.

This may be the day of the internet, but i think the most you should be able to do over the net with guns is tell the store "i want that one" you still have to go in to confirm that you're suitable to own it.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 25, 2012, 11:44:50 pm
I heard pepper spray knocks a person out no questions asked.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/ohmy.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 25, 2012, 11:52:27 pm
You have to be careful with pepper spray. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HJlWFvmHzs&feature=player_detailpage#t=54s)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 26, 2012, 12:00:58 am
You also have to be careful with tasers and stunguns. But they're not really any riskier than guns, less so i would have thought. If you do a bad shot while aiming for the knee and hit the artery, they're just as dead as if they have a heart condition and the taser blitzes them.

The true solution is social engineering towards a passive society. But only someone out of touch would believe that's actually possible with humans. You can do it to a very small group, you could not achieve it across the US.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 26, 2012, 01:02:14 am
Because it's frickin' difficult on a lot of levels.
I never said "control the weapons tomorrow, no more crime problem the week after". I never said it was easy either (contrary to what Rajaa implied).
This is something that needs to be done gradually. Columbine happened 13 years ago, they've had plenty of time to think it through.

Jmorphman said:
None of your terrible examples have to do with a fucking massacre that took place in a movie theater. Those are all just petty annoyances, not things that would actually inspire fear in some people.
It's funny, because that's also what Rajaa and MissB say when they talk about guns : guns have nothing to do with a fucking massacre that took place in a movie theater. Those are all just petty annoyances, not things that would actually inspire fear in some people.

Jmorphman said:
Because uncomfortable customers might walk out of that screening and demand a refund, which AMC wants to prevent.
So wait, are they being sensitive towards the victims, or are they just trying to not lose money ? ::)
A simpler solution would be to have a "no refunds after entering the cinema" policy.

Quote
AMC isn't trying to solve the problems of our gun laws or anything, because it's not their fucking job.
Good luck finding a quote where I'm saying it's AMC's job to do so.

Jmorphman said:
but most people in Colorado think it's at a reasonable level. And changing their minds takes a time and effort.
Then they should be stripped of their right to complain when a drama like this happens.
More seriously, of course it takes time and effort, but if only families of victims react to this kind of stuff and try to do something, nothing is EVER going to progress.

i think he's kind of quoting the way some people (like cybaster) are perceiving that news bit, "stupid americans ban costumes instead of guns like it's going to solve the problem"
something like that

I still find it interesting and somewhat horrifying that people defending the right to carry weapons are ignoring the grading system most countries have.
Because they want tanks to defend their garden.

The true solution is social engineering towards a passive society. But only someone out of touch would believe that's actually possible with humans.
Indeed, but there are many other things to try. Violence leads to violence. Some guy kills somebody, goes to jail and gets out 5 years later, how do you think he's gonna behave ? He'll only be a nuisance for society. A passive society is impossible to achieve, but a better one is possible.
I'll quote an old post of mine from Norway prisons topic :
There are always good points and bad points about things like that.

Honestly, facilities with such "human conditions" are only for the best. Remember a few decades ago, when psychology and experiences on humans were about putting needles in one's brain, brainwashing people and making them suffer to see how much they could endure ? Psychology and therapy has changed a lot nowadays, and it's a good thing.

Sort of the same thing should be the future of the jail system: putting people in jail should not be about just making them live out of the "free world" for a certain amount of time, in order to just punish them and make "nice people" feel secure. It should also be about rehabilitation. Not everybody is just a plain killer with no heart. Most of the inmates have had a life that pushed them to commit their crimes a way or another, most of them are "lost", and teaching them the rules of the society, a job, making them feel they can be useful, all this is a way to reinsert them in the society once they get out in several years.

What's the point of putting a violent guy in prison, to see him go out in 5 years, the same as before? He'll start being violent again, the police will catch him once more, and the cycle will start again until the guy is too old to punch someone else. It's a lose-lose situation.

Of course, there's also the point of view of the family and friends of the victim(s), who'd rather see the inmate rot in jail and eat mud all day long rather than reading books in a friendly library while drinking orange juice, and that's perfectly understandable. But looking at the bigger scheme, rehabilitation is how things should be working.

It has to be noted too that such as system can only work in some countries for now. Countries like Norway or Sweden have low crime rates, and the government has enough money to finance this sort of facility (paying many psychologists and LCD screens is obviously much more expensive than a few guards and iron bars).

Final point: I'm talking about things globally. All prisoners have to be checked on an individual basis. A very few inmates may be "beyond repair and rehabilitation", but most people deserve a 2nd chance in a life that hasn't been friendly to them. Prison is already enough of a punishment in most cases (child rapers can die though :ninja:), getting a real life when you go out is nice.
Topic : https://mugenguild.com/forumx/index.php?topic=132199
Also :
Norway has a 20% recidivism rate compared to the US, which is over 60% in some states. Treating people like human beings isn't some horrible idea that should be laughed at and ridiculed because OH HERE IN AMERICA WE'D HAVE LOCKED HIM IN A 5x5 BOX. Seriously, the prison system in the United States has no focus on rehabilitation at all. It's become a business. At least Norway is trying to do something fucking different to systems in other developed countries, systems that have been proven not to work.
In the same manner, guns call for guns. He has a gun ? I want a gun! He has two guns ? I'll get a rifle !
Of course you have a history that made you have weapons to defend yourself, but it's the fucking 21st century now, some states don't have capital punishment anymore, some states have rights for gays, some states control weapons correctly. It's now time for the other states to stop living in a John Wayne movie and evolve.

You can do it to a very small group, you could not achieve it across the US.
The US army tried to instaure "democracy" in the middle west with guns. Maybe some people can do the same to US citizens to social engineer them towards a passive society ? ::)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on July 26, 2012, 01:11:00 am
I never said "control the weapons tomorrow, no more crime problem the week after". I never said it was easy either (contrary to what Rajaa implied).
This is something that needs to be done gradually. Columbine happened 13 years ago, they've had plenty of time to think it through.

Maybe they don't want to, or aren't ready yet as a society. That's democracy for y'all~[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/shwing.png[/avatar]

So wait, are they being sensitive towards the victims, or are they just trying to not lose money ? ::)

The latter, by means of the former.

Quote
A simpler solution would be to have a "no refunds after entering the cinema" policy.

Don't be an asshole.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 26, 2012, 01:12:19 am
Good luck finding a quote where I'm saying it's AMC's job to do so.
Dunno if this was posted : guns are not dangerous. Instead, let's ban costumes !!!

http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/the-dark-knight-rises-costumes-ban/

Indeed, the problem is definitely the Catwoman cosplaying...
you complained about how costumes are banned instead of guns, as if it was amc's job. as if they had the decision making power to ban either costumes or guns and went for costumes instead. it's not that simple
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 26, 2012, 01:17:29 am
It's funny, because that's also what Rajaa and MissB say when they talk about guns : guns have nothing to do with a fucking massacre that took place in a movie theater. Those are all just petty annoyances, not things that would actually inspire fear in some people.
So what? What do their attitudes about guns (which I don't even agree with, BTW) have to do with anything I said???

So wait, are they being sensitive towards the victims, or are they just trying to not lose money ? ::)
A simpler solution would be to have a "no refunds after entering the cinema" policy.
The latter is what they're more concerned about, but I'm sure they're not totally heartless bastards and don't want to people to become agitated at their theaters. It's not as simple as not allowing refunds.

Good luck finding a quote where I'm saying it's AMC's job to do so.
some shithead with probably psychiatric problems did a mass murder with a semi-automatic assault rifle. therefore, as the problem isn't the guy nor the gun, we will ban batman costumes.
Oh !!! So banning Batman related costumes is surely going to prevent this from happening ? Yeah, ok.
Or maybe they could control weapons and treat the psychos, instead. Just an idea.
Of course you never said it was AMC's job to do so, but your posts lump AMC, the US government, and all Americans all together, which is disingenuous.

edit: Titiln said it better

Then they should be stripped of their right to complain when a drama like this happens.
... there are no words.

More seriously, of course it takes time and effort, but if only families of victims react to this kind of stuff and try to do something, nothing is EVER going to progress.
It's not just the families of victims, there's a great deal of people who disagree with the current gun laws.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 26, 2012, 01:26:35 am
Saying AMC's decision to ban costumes was bad is absolutely not the same as saying AMC should ban guns instead. It just means AMC's ban on costumes is bad. Don't put words in people's mouths.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 26, 2012, 01:28:18 am
Don't be an asshole.
It was meant as a joke.
I went to see the movie and didn't get shot. Do I win a cookie ? <-- THAT is being an asshole.

... there are no words.
And that's why the very next sentence starts by "more seriously". So that you can understand I'm not serious.

do I really need to put smileys everywhere?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 26, 2012, 01:45:59 am
Saying AMC's decision to ban costumes was bad is absolutely not the same as saying AMC should ban guns instead.

Quote
guns are not dangerous. Instead, let's ban costumes !!!
Quote
Or maybe they could control weapons and treat the psychos, instead
Quote
as the problem isn't the guy nor the gun, we will ban batman costumes.
if you cant see how these lines are implying amc should ban guns instead of costumes then i don't know what to say to you
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 26, 2012, 01:59:37 am
Don't be an asshole.
It was meant as a joke.
I went to see the movie and didn't get shot. Do I win a cookie ? <-- THAT is being an asshole.

... there are no words.
And that's why the very next sentence starts by "more seriously". So that you can understand I'm not serious.

do I really need to put smileys everywhere?

no, just do not put jokes if you are having a serious discussion for they are distracting, you might even confuse the pikachu guy.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on July 26, 2012, 02:22:33 am
can't they just put that airport portal to the entrance , ask people to put their mobiles and other metal objects they carry in a tray, and tell them to walk past it, when it goes beep, drag them to get a proper search
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Lord Kain on July 26, 2012, 02:27:30 am
Dude got in from the emergency exit door... bet those need one of those metal detectors aswell but again... is an Emergency exit door their just gonna have to make sure those are locked from the outside with an alarm that triggers it when it opens, last time when I was at the theater i got out from the emergency door and no sound was detected... --;
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 26, 2012, 02:39:01 am
Emergency EXITS are normally one-way. They are here, you can get out from in, but not in from out. Why the heck is that backwards? They have to be unlocked/no power needed because there may be no power during the sort of emergency where one is required. So you shouldn't be able to get in from outside.

Did he come in the day before and open it special? If it's openable from the outside... that's insecure and gets a whyyyyyy from me.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 26, 2012, 02:40:30 am
I think it was left ajar for some reason.

EDIT: found it, he went in with everyone else when the movie started without the guns or tactical gear, then he exited the emergency door (the alarm was turned off, and there's already been a lawsuit filed about it being off), propped the door open, and went to his car to get the guns
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 26, 2012, 02:54:43 am
if you cant see how these lines are implying amc should ban guns instead of costumes then i don't know what to say to you
Of these three quotes, the first and third are still commenting on "the ban on costumes", only the second one implies actually doing something about the gun or the guy. And that one is talking about "treating the psychos", and if you thought it was suggesting the theater company should be the one to do that then I don't know what to say to you.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 26, 2012, 03:52:43 am
Of these three quotes, the first and third are still commenting on "the ban on costumes", only the second one implies actually doing something about the gun or the guy.
the first and third quotes also imply that a ban on guns would've been the sensible idea, but amc are dumb dumbs.
Quote
guns are not dangerous. Instead, let's ban costumes !!!
Quote
as the problem isn't the guy nor the gun, we will ban batman costumes.
both lines are clearly paraphrasing and mocking amc's line of thought. he's making fun of how they banned costumes, instead of banning guns which would be the logical choice, since guns were used for the murders and not costumes. even though banning guns is out of amc's control as it has been repeatedly stated in this thread.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 26, 2012, 04:38:52 am
Well, they could ban guns inside the cinema. Obviously that would have no effect at all here though as he skipped out the back way and came back with them, you could do the same with a costume. Or you could have, except the alarm is probably fixed now.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on July 26, 2012, 05:55:49 am
how to properly execute costume ban anyway,
unhappy Superman fans could easily change into supermen inside the theater and start harassing others
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TempesT on July 26, 2012, 05:59:19 am
In which case they will be ejected and probably banned from that theater. What point are you trying to make?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on July 26, 2012, 10:05:24 am
then it would be too late, damage has been done.
western superhero costumes can be easily worn under their jacket/ shirt, won't be easy to spot them unless they wear a cowl, helmet, or something so obvious before entering the cinema.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 27, 2012, 05:45:21 pm
http://www.whas11.com/news/local/UK-student-facing-charges-after-emailing-163998656.html

The joker reckoning is upon us.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 27, 2012, 05:50:52 pm
Boss fired me after I shared a funny "Why So Serious" image macro with him? Help? (imafuckingidiot.reddit.com)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 27, 2012, 06:21:20 pm
this was sad, but we don't really ahev to change gun control laws at all, so let's just pray that this does not hapane again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 27, 2012, 09:58:34 pm
And the press is still milking this one... 

 >:(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 27, 2012, 10:12:16 pm
this was sad, but we don't really ahev to change gun control laws at all
IT IS STILL TOO SOON TO TALK ABOUT GUN LAWS (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/07/24/jon-stewart-on-the-right-and-wrong-time-to-talk-about-guns)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on July 27, 2012, 10:52:31 pm
If I want to know that psycho's favorite ice cream there's probably a breaking news story on it somewhere, but I had to search and search for anything on those 15 people killed in a wreck in Texas.

 >:(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 27, 2012, 11:04:35 pm
If I want to know that psycho's favorite ice cream there's probably a breaking news story on it somewhere, but I had to search and search for anything on those 15 people killed in a wreck in Texas.

 >:(
its a shocking development that within the context of civilization news coverage focus more on a tragedy happening at a place where contextually everyone feels safe, than at car wrecks that everyone already recognizes as a potential place where people could lose their lives.
Its simply shocking.

Next up, complaints about how cancer death stories are less covered than cannibalism stories.


===============
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/its-guns-we-all-know-its-not-really-guns
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-in-the-news/michael-moore-piers-morgan-tonight-72412-part-1






Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on July 28, 2012, 12:15:17 am
Too soon indeed: http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-grocery/KfFgHz9Y5U2ISAIt_52E3g.cspx
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mechy on July 28, 2012, 12:18:28 am
Be sure to tell me when someone ends a shooting spree with a knife.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 28, 2012, 12:48:08 am
Too soon indeed: http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-grocery/KfFgHz9Y5U2ISAIt_52E3g.cspx

april 2012 but reported now.

heres one from today!
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120727/NEWS/120727005/Pendleton-shooting-suspect-innocent-bystander-dead?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 28, 2012, 02:29:09 pm
i love how Michael Moore pulls out all those numbers but yet, there is no mention of the sources whatsoever...still, it has to be right because it's Michael Moore? i like (most) of his work but this is kind of bad considering the massive flood of information context we live in now
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Chronan on July 28, 2012, 03:44:09 pm
Quote
michaelmoore.com
Hahahaha!

Here are some other great links to find more facts and educated opinions on major issues:
http://www.hannity.com/
http://www.billoreilly.com/
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 28, 2012, 11:15:32 pm
Hey, c'mon now, Rachael Maddow is awesome. Don't lump her in with those losers. >:[
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Seadragon77 on July 29, 2012, 02:36:17 am
Hey, c'mon now, Rachael Maddow is awesome. Don't lump her in with those losers. >:[

Well, to be fair and honest... I didn't know that Encyclopedia Dramatica was a 'loser' at all. The other two: Gigantic losers, and that's just me being nice.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 29, 2012, 05:19:51 am
Quote
michaelmoore.com
Hahahaha!

Here are some other great links to find more facts and educated opinions on major issues:
http://www.hannity.com/
http://www.billoreilly.com/
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/

 I was told by jmorphman those articles were decent! hence posting them


Another Joker stepped forward.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/27/12993058-maryland-man-found-with-dozens-of-weapons-says-hes-the-joker

13 legal weapons

    4 30-round magazines
    2 shotguns
    1 Beretta .40-cal handgun
    1 Ruger .45-cal handgun
    2 KAHR 9mm handguns
    1 Beretta 9mm handgun
    2 Sig Sauer P226 handguns
    1 Browning Arms handgun
    2 Mauser rifles
    1 FN Herstal rifle
    1 Ruger 357 handgun
    1 Night scope
    100 rounds 12 remington
    40 large steel boxes of ammo of various calibers

(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120727-PGguns1-1220p.380;380;7;70.jpg)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 29, 2012, 05:21:38 am
Super useful for protection, unless the criminals get in while you're not there. Then they're all super well armed, and you have your 1 handgun.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 29, 2012, 05:29:32 am
I was told by jmorphman those articles were decent! hence posting them
Yeah, that article isn't really that bad. It reminded me of his early stuff (in that it wasn't unbearably smug and self-righteous)

It may just be a result of it being text only so you can't hear his voice though!

Another Joker stepped forward.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/27/12993058-maryland-man-found-with-dozens-of-weapons-says-hes-the-joker

13 legal weapons

    4 30-round magazines
    2 shotguns
    1 Beretta .40-cal handgun
    1 Ruger .45-cal handgun
    2 KAHR 9mm handguns
    1 Beretta 9mm handgun
    2 Sig Sauer P226 handguns
    1 Browning Arms handgun
    2 Mauser rifles
    1 FN Herstal rifle
    1 Ruger 357 handgun
    1 Night scope
    100 rounds 12 remington
    40 large steel boxes of ammo of various calibers

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120727-PGguns1-1220p.380;380;7;70.jpg
fml
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on July 29, 2012, 09:14:25 pm
that's very VERY fucked up...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on July 30, 2012, 12:02:17 am
"I'm a penguin"
got arrested
"wait I'm just joking, why so serious"
got tasered
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mechy on July 30, 2012, 12:42:46 am
Another Joker stepped forward.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/27/12993058-maryland-man-found-with-dozens-of-weapons-says-hes-the-joker

13 legal weapons

    4 30-round magazines
    2 shotguns
    1 Beretta .40-cal handgun
    1 Ruger .45-cal handgun
    2 KAHR 9mm handguns
    1 Beretta 9mm handgun
    2 Sig Sauer P226 handguns
    1 Browning Arms handgun
    2 Mauser rifles
    1 FN Herstal rifle
    1 Ruger 357 handgun
    1 Night scope
    100 rounds 12 remington
    40 large steel boxes of ammo of various calibers

(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120727-PGguns1-1220p.380;380;7;70.jpg)
Boy is this guy ready to stop every stabbing spree he comes across!

You know when he is not killing innocent people with his TOTALLY LEGAL heavy ordnance.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 30, 2012, 05:03:36 am
What's wrong with this picture? (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120727080249-gps-firearms-map-c1-main.jpg)
EDIT:
and this
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/Gun%20ViolenceEDIT.jpg)
and this
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/preventionEDIT.jpg)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 30, 2012, 05:23:36 am
oh and in america bounty hunting is still legal right?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TempesT on July 30, 2012, 05:29:20 am
Not in the sense that "Give me a target to kill for x amount of money"
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on July 30, 2012, 05:36:31 am
yeah i know they usually end up peacefully. shooting or killing a offender would be a hell of a paper work.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 30, 2012, 06:08:50 am
Jmorph: What's wrong with that picture is that it's tiny and has no scale on it for firearms apart from a vague idea brown is bad. It's based on guns per hundred, with america having 2% of the worlds population and 50% of it's guns with on average 88 guns per 100 americans.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 30, 2012, 11:19:22 am
By "wrong", do you mean there's a mistake in one picture, or a mistake when taking all pictures into account, or "wrong" in the sense of "what the hell is wrong with the US ?" or "what the hell is wrong with the rest of the World ?"

Also, correlation :
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/ElectoralCollege2008.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege2008.svg.png)
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/preventionEDIT.jpg)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 30, 2012, 11:34:34 am
By "wrong", do you mean there's a mistake in one picture, or a mistake when taking all pictures into account, or "wrong" in the sense of "what the hell is wrong with the US ?" or "what the hell is wrong with the rest of the World ?"
None of those things? I meant what is wrong with gun laws in America.

Also, correlation :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/ElectoralCollege2008.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege2008.svg.png
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/preventionEDIT.jpg
That was already in one of the graphs! (http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/Gun%20ViolenceEDIT.jpg) >:[
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 30, 2012, 11:35:11 am
The obama mccain comparison proves nothing except the worst places are republican. Nevada for example is democrat and it's in the 20+ area as well.

It's not really a party based problem. It's a national one.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 30, 2012, 02:48:51 pm
Look you are ignoring the major issue here.

The joker is trying to invade our continuity.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 30, 2012, 11:48:12 pm
Well he's doing a shit job of it. Since when was his hair orange.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on July 31, 2012, 12:44:20 am
http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-lawsuit-shooting/

Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action.  The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie.  Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."



No more dc movies! Well I sure bet on the right horse with marvel.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Nanashi_1337 on July 31, 2012, 12:48:21 am
*sigh* Really?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: -Red- on July 31, 2012, 12:49:10 am
Well he's doing a shit job of it. Since when was his hair orange.

wasn't that already explained here? It's related to a scene in the previous movie where the joker dressed as a nurse.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on July 31, 2012, 12:52:00 am
Poor children in Afghanistan and Irak should fill a lawsuit against Activision, for Call of Duty is a violent game, and US soldiers are mimicking some action from the game.
Wait what.

Send the lawyer to jail, because he's stupid.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on July 31, 2012, 01:22:51 am
"Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action.
So he planned to mimic the movie... before even seeing it, then ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on July 31, 2012, 01:32:05 am
Hey, anything to prevent it being the fault of his parents, his education, the state, all the other things that would require a HUMAN to take responsibility. Lets blame a movie.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on July 31, 2012, 04:07:05 am
holmes didn't even see the fucking movie. karpel should've blamed the dark knight if anything. guy was going around claiming to be the joker. karpel is a goddamn moron that did absolutely no research. get a better lawyer
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 31, 2012, 04:43:25 am
Dane Cook brings his amazing humor to this tragedy. (http://www.avclub.com/articles/dane-cook-brings-dane-cooks-sense-of-satire-to-the,83065/)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: MelvanaInChains on July 31, 2012, 04:47:56 am
"You have to admit; this is pretty hilarious," said comedian Dane Cook as he was gunned down in a theater

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
Title: In soviet mexico batman robs teathers
Post by: Bastard Mami on July 31, 2012, 04:00:49 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/masked-thief-mexico-robs-2-cinemas-showing-batman-025800645.html

english media just says that the robbers were dressed in black, but mexican media specifically says that one was wearing a batman costume.

http://www.muriller.com/hombre-disfrazado-de-batman-asalta-dos-bancos-en-chihuahua-en-menos-de-una-hora/
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on July 31, 2012, 04:03:25 pm
Maybe it was Zorro.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 01, 2012, 05:51:13 am
u crazy zorro has mustache batman does not
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 01, 2012, 07:49:05 am
i present to you the batmoustache!
(http://www.vincentabry.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Batman-Moustache.jpg)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 01, 2012, 09:40:04 am
is that GBK?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 01, 2012, 11:52:39 am
that looks itchy.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Toshio Tenma on August 01, 2012, 12:04:58 pm
Is that covering the error of not teaching the "Don't pass what you saw in fiction to reality?" which a lot of people is ignoring? They're ignoring that and blamming the media. If I was not taught that, then I would be in trouble. Anyway, I recall of boys jumping windows thinking they could fly like Superman O_o Reality is always different than fiction and is not because your favourite character killed someone, that you should kill as well. Stupid people like these who blame a movie for madman behavior will never stop appearing.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 01, 2012, 12:18:23 pm
The problem with statistics and graphs is they can be manipulated to show anything.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on August 01, 2012, 12:51:20 pm
I need to see some statistics that back that up.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 01, 2012, 12:56:47 pm
50% of all statistics are bullshit.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 01, 2012, 06:54:35 pm
http://www.local10.com/news/Police-respond-to-reports-of-shooting-at-Miami-Beach-Batman-screening/-/1717324/15881838/-/yk6r3o/-/index.html

New one.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 01, 2012, 07:09:19 pm
lemme guess he's either tweedledum or tweedleedee?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: coolwar13 on August 01, 2012, 07:14:14 pm
Meh, and i wanted to go to the cinema premiere in Germany.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on August 01, 2012, 07:49:03 pm
what a dumbass...people are already fucking edgy, no need to throw more oil in the fire (if Holmes was the Joker, who is he? Bane?  :S)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 01, 2012, 07:59:41 pm
i can't wait to see the riddle.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 01, 2012, 08:28:09 pm
I need to see some statistics that back that up.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5446/7044034127_da6ef3ce86_z.jpg)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Toshio Tenma on August 03, 2012, 11:43:42 am
I found stupid the judge blamming the movie, because it feels he is also blamming the victims for watching a "violent movie" as well. It's not because somebody have a favourite character who kill innocent people that they should kill innocent people as well.
If he really liked Batman series and their villains, then he should become a writter instead.
However, I doub't he is really a fan of anything, he is just a heartless assassin.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 03, 2012, 12:21:24 pm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8f_1343929928

batman arrested.. for illegal possession of handcuffs.
Wtf rifles are legal but handcuffs are illegal?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 03, 2012, 12:27:12 pm
Waiting for our fellow US posters to explain to us why handcuffs are illegal and why asking if people want help is illegal, when being in possession of semi-automatic weapons is perfectly fine and dandy.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 03, 2012, 01:07:53 pm
Where was this?  I dont see anything that tells me the state this happened in... which would explain WHY handcuffs would have been illegal. And there is nothing in that article that says this guy had any kind of firearms.

Really, if you guys can't be bothered to google states rights and at least attempt to understand them, I can't take any of you seriously.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 03, 2012, 01:21:17 pm
It says Mansfield Township, Mansfield Village and Hackettstown, and they all seem to be in New Jersey.
Apparently from what I can find in New Jersey, handcuffs can't be just waved around outside of a situation that warrants their usage (I'm not quite sure why that and "asking people if they need help" result in being put to the ground, handcuffed and arrested, unless he was actually being creepy and pushy and all), and handguns require a permit and a background check.
Quote
I can't take any of you seriously.
...
Pot kettle etc.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 03, 2012, 02:00:26 pm
And there is nothing in that article that says this guy had any kind of firearms.
??? He wasn't arrested because he had firearms. He was arrested because he had handcuffs ! They're dangerous !!! They can be used during sex games!

I can't take any of you seriously.
Difficult to take seriously people who aren't from the most beautiful god blessed country in the world. ::)
One would think that with such a high number of guns, you'd at least get more medals in shooting sports during the Olympic Games. It's hard to take you seriously a country where such a high number of shooters have such a low success rate at reaching their target.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 03, 2012, 02:13:20 pm
To be fair, walking around waving handcuffs for no reason could seem like you're trying to pass for a vigilante or a cop, and posing for a law enforcement agent can be illegal (as it is to wear a military uniform with medals or such)

At any rate, NJ has different laws that do control guns and it makes it more excusable that handcuffs are illegal too (you can't say "handcuffs are illegal but guns are legal") but even so, it's illogical to begin with that states can have different laws on something like that, it's not a good excuse. It's still wrong to have such differences where guns are legal in one part of the country and handcuffs are illegal in another part - it's the same country, it doesn't matter if it's different states.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 03, 2012, 02:21:51 pm
Well, the article isn't really complete.
Nothing says he was waving the handcuffs.
He put his hands in his pocket to ... take out a phone!

For anything, he looks like a stupid guy with a mask and a cape asking strange stuff in the streets. May look weird, but in no way is it dangerous, and it looks more like a simpleton doing cosplaying than anything else. If it's meant as a joke, granted, it's not very funny, but that's overreacting.
Having a few cops passing by and asking him to stop is fine, but unless he resisted and started insulting them, this doesn't seem to warrant "facing disorderly person and possession of handcuffs charges".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 03, 2012, 02:35:49 pm
Guy was one of those "super hero" persons that go around trying to help others.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/express-times/index.ssf/2012/08/batman-like_mask-clad_man_says.html

They want to inspire hope without carrying guns around.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TempesT on August 03, 2012, 02:54:01 pm
The only thing that needed to be said in that article was that was really shitty timing. Regardless of what his intentions were, if you're wearing body armor and a mask and just standing in a parking lot going up to people, that can be taken so many different ways, I'd say he was arrested on fair grounds. (yes, even if you think owning and carrying handcuffs being illegal is stupid, it's still a law and he should know that)


when being in possession of semi-automatic weapons is perfectly fine and dandy.
Why do you keep bringing this up? You're never going to understand it, because you think it's horrible and you don't want to understand it.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 03:16:25 pm
His is arrest warranted because he was breaking the law and disturbing the peace. Anyone who doesn't have the authority to possess real handcuffs is breaking the law. Much like anyone who doesn't have the authority to possess a real gun is breaking the law.

Therefore, the following question is invalid:

Why are guns legal and handcuffs illegal?

Anybody who asked that question literally has a mental block.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 03, 2012, 03:23:53 pm
My question? it was about Rifles. Rifles have legal permits for citizens, handcuffs can not have legal permits for citizens. Why would you need a rifle? ( I can think of a couple good uses for a set of handcuffs or three )
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 03:26:49 pm
Become a law enforcement officer and you have a permit to possess handcuffs. It's not: Guns are legal, handcuffs are illegal. It is: guns and handcuffs may be legal or illegal depending on each specific case.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 03, 2012, 03:33:33 pm
T
Become a law enforcement officer and you have a permit to possess handcuffs. It's not: Guns are legal, handcuffs are illegal. It is: guns and handcuffs may be legal or illegal depending on each specific case.


Become a law officer and you are not a citizen anymore, you are a public servant. Nevermind that the guy was a military policeman until a while ago.
Im not saying that guns and handcuffs are legal or illegal in every case permanently nor have i ever said that. I pointed out how weird it was that rifles can be legal for citizens but not handcuffs.

Im starting to feel that the said block you talked about is a cultural blindspot, and its yours.

Why would it possess you to even suggest I was claiming handcuffs are illegal in every case. The context of the post was clear as heck. I even posted a few pages ago detailing how gun access laws worked here that rifles were avaliable for military and police officers but not citizens, I never suggested that guns should be banned or something like that.


Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 03, 2012, 03:40:37 pm
Do I think it's horrible ? Yeah maybe. Problems like these are "supposed" to happen in countries such as Colombia, Mexico or Thailand. Death by gun, as horrible as it is for them, is pretty common, because of 3rd world country, gangs, etc. It should not be happening in a country such as the US, or at least not so often.

Do I want to understand it ? Yes I want. I want to understand why USA thinks it's fine that citizens can have weapons in certain states. Why it's the ONLY 1st world country with such lax gun legislation. Why they think it's fine to have a collection of guns at home. Why they are scared to get killed like it's freaking Far West and gold rush. Why they act surprised each time people die. Why each time the rest of the world mocks them they think they're right and never ask themselves if the problem doesn't come from their country and laws. Why the US spends as much as the sum of the 14 other first countries for military expenditures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures), twice as much electricity as Europeans per citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption) and much more oil per citizen than any other country in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption) and they think it's perfectly normal. Why each time someone questions something about the US, Americans take it as a personal attack against their country.



Iced asked a simple question (Jmorphman asked the same one) :
Why would you need a rifle?
And yet again we have a dodging answer. I have yet to see a logical answer to this question.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 03, 2012, 03:49:22 pm
What would the oil and electricity expense have to do with gun laws and public safety? or was that a tangent? D:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 03:59:36 pm
Become a law officer and you are not a citizen anymore, you are a public servant.
What does that have to do with the legality of handcuffs?

Im not saying that guns and handcuffs are legal or illegal in every case permanently nor have i ever said that.
You asked an implicit question comparing the legality of rifles and handcuffs.

I pointed out how weird it was that rifles can be legal for citizens but not handcuffs.
You said nothing about citizens, you just mentioned rifles and handcuffs.

Im starting to feel that the said block you talked about is a cultural blindspot, and its yours.
No. It's yours. You're just inserting some possible contentions into your posts to save face. That's okay, though.

Why would it possess you to even suggest I was claiming handcuffs are illegal in every case.
What would possess you to ask why handcuffs are illegal while rifles aren't? And without any context besides that one simple, implicit question?

The context of the post was clear as heck.
Obviously not:

batman arrested.. for illegal possession of handcuffs.
Wtf rifles are legal but handcuffs are illegal?

Sorry, dude. But that is you saying "what the fuck" at the laws surrounding guns and handcuffs. There is no context to your post because your post is the beginning of a new discussion -- it is the first post of this new discussion.

I even posted a few pages ago detailing how gun access laws worked here that rifles were avaliable for military and police officers but not citizens, I never suggested that guns should be banned or something like that.
Irrelevant.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 03, 2012, 04:04:28 pm
Become a law officer and you are not a citizen anymore, you are a public servant.
What does that have to do with the legality of handcuffs?

Im not saying that guns and handcuffs are legal or illegal in every case permanently nor have i ever said that.
You asked an implicit question comparing the legality of rifles and handcuffs.

I pointed out how weird it was that rifles can be legal for citizens but not handcuffs.
You said nothing about citizens, you just mentioned rifles and handcuffs.

Im starting to feel that the said block you talked about is a cultural blindspot, and its yours.
No. It's yours. You're just inserting some possible contentions into your posts to save face. That's okay, though.

Why would it possess you to even suggest I was claiming handcuffs are illegal in every case.
What would possess you to ask why handcuffs are illegal while rifles aren't? And without any context besides that one simple, implicit question?

The context of the post was clear as heck.
Obviously not:

batman arrested.. for illegal possession of handcuffs.
Wtf rifles are legal but handcuffs are illegal?

Sorry, dude. But that is you saying "what the fuck" at the laws surrounding guns and handcuffs. There is no context to your post because your post is the beginning of a new discussion -- it is the first post of this new discussion.

I even posted a few pages ago detailing how gun access laws worked here that rifles were avaliable for military and police officers but not citizens, I never suggested that guns should be banned or something like that.
Irrelevant.

I see, apparently posting a new link related ot the theme of the thread somehow causes  a reset in the time continuun where any past posts suddenly become invisible because you really need to ignore them to save face about your gut instinct to defend something that no one is attacking.

Good one.
Good one dodging the question that jmorphman and me have been asking since the start of this thread, i guess it went away with the continuity reset as well.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 03, 2012, 04:08:36 pm
lol
there is still someone who take rajaa's posts seriously
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 03, 2012, 04:11:01 pm
Don't worry Iced, next time raja will say that he does nto understand your broken foreign english so he will automatically win any argument against aliens.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 04:13:53 pm
I see, apparently posting a new link related ot the theme of the thread somehow causes  a reset in the time continuun where any past posts suddenly become invisible because you really need to ignore them to save face about your gut instinct to defend something that no one is attacking.
The post we're talking about is the first time handcuffs have come up in this topic. I can't think of any other post that adds to the context of the legality of handcuffs in comparison to the legality of guns -- insomuch that it's stupid for handcuffs to be illegal whiles guns are legal, which is what you implied in your post with your question.

Good one dodging the question that jmorphman and me have been asking since the start of this thread, i guess it went away with the continuity reset as well.
Dodging the question? What question? I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't remember any question that both you and Jmorphman have both asked me. But even still, the question couldn't have been about rifles and handcuffs because that's a new and recent subject. So the question was likely irrelevant to the topic now or not directed at me by both you and Jmorphman. Maybe neither of you.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 03, 2012, 04:16:16 pm
Why would you need a rifle?
Why would you need a rifle?
Why would you need a rifle?
Why would you need a rifle?
Why would you need a rifle?
Why would you need a rifle?
Why would you need a rifle?
Why would you need a rifle?
Why would you need a rifle?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 04:22:53 pm
That post was really unnecessary, dude. And I have given my opinion on that question many times. If you're saying I avoided that question, then I don't know what to tell you. Read the thread.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 03, 2012, 04:24:25 pm
The recurrent question was "why would a citizen need a military rifle" it hsa come up a ton of times in several different phrasings, going as far as point out that even grenade launchers were avaliable legally ,  and it refers to that post since what is shocking is that citizens can get rifles legally but not handcuffs, the legality of handcuffs for policemen, aka public servants, was never in question.

tldr: Following my posts where I questioned several times why would citizens need those legal military weapons( with the only thing close to an answer being missb claiming squirrel invasions, which was promptly ignored ) , I elicited my surprise at the complete illegality of handcuffs.

You are being quick to the trigger in trying to paint me as some kind of gun hater or something, when I have actually even been arguing against cybaster ( who i think its too harsh on the situation ) .

Edit: cybsater dont do that , cmon >_>
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 04:31:11 pm
I thought you were using "rifles" as a replacement for "guns." I didn't know you meant military type guns. If you're talking about automatic rifles, grenade launchers, and rocket launchers, then, yes, I intentionally avoided those questions/posts because I don't want anyone to know my opinion on normal citizens possessing those types of weapons. So you can stop asking me now. And Cybaster can stop bringing them up whenever he makes a post.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 03, 2012, 04:35:04 pm
because
handcuff is the modern version of shackles
and that reminds the time of slavery
god forbids that in the land of the free
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on August 03, 2012, 04:35:50 pm
Quote
Why each time the rest of the world mocks them they think they're right and never ask themselves if the problem doesn't come from their country and laws.
yeah no american ever thinks their country has flaws! they're blinded by patriotism! usa number one!


every time you make ignorant generalizations like those you come off as a massive bigot and they're the reason most people stopped bothering to argue with you at this point
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 03, 2012, 04:43:28 pm
I thought you were using "rifles" as a replacement for "guns." I didn't know you meant military type guns.
Shouldve read the thread, Im all for gun ownership.

With its proper exceptions, ofc.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 03, 2012, 04:52:30 pm
yeah no american ever thinks their country has flaws! they're blinded by patriotism! usa number one!


every time you make ignorant generalizations like those
Meanwhile the country as a whole doesn't change and you see a volley of politicians going full defensive and making sure nothing changes, and those who do want change do nothing (and can do nothing). But it's good to know that there's a handful of precious little individuals who do disagree with the rest of the country, because one can have the strength of hundreds, and a hundred, the strength of millions.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 05:03:28 pm
That's assuming that the majority is wrong and the minority is right, which isn't necessarily the case.

I thought you were using "rifles" as a replacement for "guns." I didn't know you meant military type guns.
Shouldve read the thread, Im all for gun ownership.

With its proper exceptions, ofc.
I never said you were against gun ownership and that wasn't what I was concerned about when you compared guns laws to handcuff laws.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: walt on August 03, 2012, 05:08:44 pm
Newsflash. The majority is wrong.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 03, 2012, 05:12:11 pm
That's assuming that the majority is wrong and the minority is right
What ? No. I made no such assumption. Cybaster made a generalization. Titiln said not everyone thinks like that. I said it doesn't matter if it's not everyone as long as the country as a whole stays the same. I'm not even saying anything about who is right and who is wrong, I'm saying nitpicking about a generalization is meaningless here when the end result is the same.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 05:46:07 pm
...

I'm not even gonna entertain any of the last two posts.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 03, 2012, 06:02:25 pm
yeah no american ever thinks their country has flaws! they're blinded by patriotism! usa number one!

every time you make ignorant generalizations like those you come off as a massive bigot and they're the reason most people stopped bothering to argue with you at this point
Yeah, because each time I say "Americans", I obviously mean 100% of the US citizens, including the babies. They're obviously ALL stupid, and anybody who puts a foot on their soil becomes stupid thanks to their US God's blessing.

Byakko already said it : if a country has stupid laws, and nobody does anything to change it (either because they don't want to, or because they can't, it doesn't change anything to the final result), then "the country is stupid". Maybe one day you'll understand that a generalization is not meant to be taken textually.
Americans are stupid != ALL Americans are stupid.
Asians have small dicks != ALL Asians have small dicks.
People from XXX country are poor != ALL people from XXX country are poor.
People from XXX country speak Spanish != ALL people from XXX country speak Spanish.
People from XXX country are good engineers != people from XXX country are good engineers.

Should I continue, or do you get my point ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on August 03, 2012, 07:58:27 pm
no fucking shit you don't mean all americans. it still comes off as bigotry. some of the examples you give are reasonably measurable (poverty, language) and are way different from saying asians have small dicks or the blacks can't swim for shit or the americans are stupid. i don't even see how a country having bad politicians makes it right to say all people in that country are blind idiots. well some french politicians aren't as involved so the french are stupid. obviously i don't mean all french people but most of them are pretty goddamn stupid. i'm done. keep being as terribly ignorant and bigoted as the americans you make fun of.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 03, 2012, 08:19:15 pm
say all people in that country are blind idiots.
looks like you didnt get my point. man all chileans must be idiots

i don't even see how a country having bad politicians makes it right to say all people in that country are blind idiots.
i didnt elect bush twice

some french politicians aren't as involved
what does this mean i dont even

Quote
keep being as terribly ignorant and bigoted as the americans you make fun of.
cool story bro. luckily for me, i live in a country where guns are regulated, so i cant get shot in the streets like the americans i make fun of. wait what
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 03, 2012, 08:25:09 pm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8f_1343929928

batman arrested.. for illegal possession of handcuffs.
Wtf rifles are legal but handcuffs are illegal?
That took place in New Jersey. In that state, gun laws are pretty sensible!

the wikipedias said:
Capacities of semiautomatic handguns and rifles (total in magazine excluding chamber) are limited to 15 rounds. Furthermore, New Jersey has banned various semi-automatic firearms.

But yeah amerikkka sux, I know.

Waiting for our fellow US posters to explain to us why handcuffs are illegal and why asking if people want help is illegal, when being in possession of semi-automatic weapons is perfectly fine and dandy.
Well I don't know what the handcuffs being illegal is, but I'm sure there's a good reason. But anyway, the guy was not "asking if people want help". He was causing a panic. You really think someone dressed up in a costume shouting ISN'T gonna cause some unrest?

Difficult to take seriously people who aren't from the most beautiful god blessed country in the world. ::)
When has anyone in this thread (or this forum, even) expressed anything remotely similar to this attitude. Get the fuck off your high horse, it's unbecoming.

I want to understand why USA thinks it's fine that citizens can have weapons in certain states.
America doesn't think so one way or the other because it is not a homogenous mass of people who think the same. Individual states have enacted laws that are variously harsh or relaxed on gun control. And those laws have continued throughout America's history because of various reasons (revolutionary ere need to hunt and protect oneself, the expanding frontier, then the rise of the NRA, I'm not gonna write an essay on this!)

Why each time someone questions something about the US, Americans take it as a personal attack against their country.
Probably because they phrase it as one. Like right now. >.>

yeah no american ever thinks their country has flaws! they're blinded by patriotism! usa number one!


every time you make ignorant generalizations like those you come off as a massive bigot and they're the reason most people stopped bothering to argue with you at this point
Thank you.

But it's good to know that there's a handful of precious little individuals who do disagree with the rest of the country, because one can have the strength of hundreds, and a hundred, the strength of millions.
Ah, good to know that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Saves me a lot of time.

i didnt elect bush twice
It was only once. >:[

and you try getting Kerry elected even with a weak GOP nominee!!!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on August 03, 2012, 08:35:17 pm
looks like you didnt get my point.
you didn't really have a point
Quote
i didnt elect bush twice
they did elect obama though, who the rest of the world loved at that point (http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/polls/results/usa-presidential-election-2008/)
Quote
what does this mean i dont even
it's an example for the sake of my argument. i'm applying byakko's fucked up attempt at logic
Quote
cool story bro. luckily for me, i live in a country where guns are regulated
wow you still don't understand how state legislation works? after all these pages and multiple users attempting to explain it to you? why are you so dense?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 03, 2012, 08:36:27 pm
as I am a man of clarity, I don't see how saying "Americans are stupid" can't be translated to ALL AMERICANS ON STUPID. You can't just say that without it looking like something that's a generalized statement, it's how the context of it works and it's how it's been used in the past, AND present, that makes it easily read as such, and I can see why. Generalizations may not be meant to be taken textually, but they don't look nor appear any better than if they actually were meant to be taken as such.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 03, 2012, 08:38:11 pm
But it's good to know that there's a handful of precious little individuals who do disagree with the rest of the country, because one can have the strength of hundreds, and a hundred, the strength of millions.
Ah, good to know that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Saves me a lot of time.
Say that again when gun regulation becomes the norm and not the exception, thanks.

Quote
you still don't understand how state legislation works?
I mentioned it earlier, but I'm going to say it again : state legislation is retarded on something as important as that - it's criminally dumb, even. The whole country should have a regulation for that. This is exactly why the USA as a whole can't be taken seriously on this matter, and why people end up saying what Cybaster says. Don't say "you don't understand that states have their own laws each" as if it was an excuse, because it's not. It's the cause (or a major cause) of the problem.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 03, 2012, 08:41:47 pm
Say that again when gun regulation becomes the norm and not the exception, thanks.
OK.

...

Oh wait, it already is. And you're still retarded! Oh my goodness!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 03, 2012, 08:51:19 pm
because
handcuff is the modern version of shackles
and that reminds the time of slavery
god forbids that in the land of the free

wait god doesn't forbid slavery, he even provide regulations and how to own one.

i don't live in the usa so i think i don't have a say in this but gun laws should be stricter, and for those who owns a gun here be responsible don't be stupid if you're gonna take it with you when you're going outside make sure it stays in your car in a proper safety case with a lock, make sure you bring your papers for it.and if you're a hot headed jerk then you shouldn't allow yourself to carry one. you'll just end up hurting yourself or worse, someone else.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 09:02:09 pm
How is state regulation retarded and criminally dumb? What the fuck. The last time I checked the whole country had regulatory laws for guns. But let me check again since someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about said that states' regulations for guns are retarded, criminal, and dumb.

Every state is different. That's the fucking beauty of the country. If you want strict gun control and you can't feel safe without it, move up to the northeast. If you want lax gun laws, move to the southwest. There are varying positions on gun policies because people think differently. There are various states with different gun policies for those various thought processes. No one is being enslaved, no one is having their rights taken away, so why should the federal government intervene for something that is agreeably arbitrary?

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 03, 2012, 09:09:00 pm
Lets start making generalizations about Europe!  Like Europe was responsible for the worst school killing and the harshest genocide in this century.  Why can't Europeans handle these horrible things?

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 03, 2012, 09:30:14 pm
wow you still don't understand how state legislation works? after all these pages and multiple users attempting to explain it to you? why are you so dense?
yes, i understand that each state has its own legislation. and ? in some state i could get killed by some crazy guy carrying 20 guns legally
also, isn't it supposed to be the UNITED states of america ? i'll rename it the different_laws_in_each states of america

Every state is different. That's the fucking beauty of the country. [...] There are varying positions on gun policies because people think differently.
beautiful... wait no i dont see how. why not just split each state into its own country at this point then ?
with this way of thinking, might as well having one set of laws per person, because everybody thinks differently from his neighbour

Lets start making generalizations about Europe!  Like Europe was responsible for the worst school killing and the harshest genocide in this century.  Why can't Europeans handle these horrible things?

:bow:
too bad europe is not a country. and there wasn't any genocide in europe THIS century.
but we can talk about who launched several holy wars to the middle west if you want (hint: it's a country)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 03, 2012, 09:41:49 pm
kanada? no? texas? idk why europeans think they're superior to americans while they did some pretty useful inventions and innovations. except for germany like it or not they produced most ingenious creations in the past 100 years.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 03, 2012, 09:46:56 pm
Well if some of your generalization examples included Asians, they're not a country. They're a race. So why can't people generalize about Europe? This is pointless. Let's face it, generalization, no matter how it's used, looks bad. This is undisputed.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 09:50:06 pm
wow you still don't understand how state legislation works? after all these pages and multiple users attempting to explain it to you? why are you so dense?
yes, i understand that each state has its own legislation. and ? in some state i could get killed by some crazy guy carrying 20 guns legally
also, isn't it supposed to be the UNITED states of america ? i'll rename it the different_laws_in_each states of america

Every state is different. That's the fucking beauty of the country. [...] There are varying positions on gun policies because people think differently.
beautiful... wait no i dont see how. why not just split each state into its own country at this point then ?
with this way of thinking, might as well having one set of laws per person, because everybody thinks differently from his neighbour

Lets start making generalizations about Europe!  Like Europe was responsible for the worst school killing and the harshest genocide in this century.  Why can't Europeans handle these horrible things?

:bow:
too bad europe is not a country. and there wasn't any genocide in europe THIS century.
but we can talk about who launched several holy wars to the middle west if you want (hint: it's a country)


You're questioning the structure of the United States of America and saying that each state should be its own country and comparing that to the tyranny of having individual laws for each person, which not only shows how little you understand about the country, but it is also almost as bad as you comparing banning costumes from a movie theater to racism. You fell so easily into MBH's joke-post which shows how eager you are to make America look bad. You have a huge gaping bias reaming with the puss of your ignorance. I don't think there's any hope for you.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 03, 2012, 09:53:10 pm
I will try some Cybastr approved generalizations. :)

Cybaster maybe you should try backing up your arguments with intelligence, the intelligence you didn't use when coding a dumb flashy DBZ character.

What? That's an unfair judgment of your characters? Well, tough shit. The vast majority of DBZ characters are like that, so even if yours were any good, you don't get to complain!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 03, 2012, 10:02:02 pm
Say that again when gun regulation becomes the norm and not the exception, thanks.
OK.

...

Oh wait, it already is.
No, not when nearly half of the states don't actually make it hard to get a gun, it isn't the norm.
Every state is different. That's the fucking beauty of the country.
I was just saying it's the fucking problem, and you reply it's the fucking beauty.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 10:04:02 pm
It's what problem?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 03, 2012, 10:05:30 pm
Well if some of your generalization examples included Asians, they're not a country. They're a race. So why can't people generalize about Europe? This is pointless. Let's face it, generalization, no matter how it's used, looks bad. This is undisputed.


asians isn't a race it's a term for people living in asia, there are various races in asia like orientals,malay,arab and other ethnic groups. but imo "human races" is a stupid idea and come to think of it westerners are very obsess about grouping people by "races".

@rajaa: i think he was saying that the usa's problem is it's states having different laws.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 03, 2012, 10:05:44 pm
No, not when nearly half of the states don't actually make it hard to get a gun, it isn't the norm.
They're still regulated. That regulation may not be tight enough for either your or my standards, but it still exists.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 03, 2012, 10:11:33 pm
I should remind you that you were replying to a post where I was saying that the people who want stricter regulations were the minority.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 03, 2012, 10:24:43 pm
I should remind you that you were replying to a post where I was saying that the people who want stricter regulations were the minority.
Thanks, but I can read all by myself. I'm a big boy.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 03, 2012, 11:17:27 pm
cybaster is right, raja is wrong.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 03, 2012, 11:21:54 pm
I'm never gonna fall for any of your posts. You can stop spamming now.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 03, 2012, 11:58:42 pm
it's not spam, it's a fact.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 04, 2012, 12:06:56 am
You're questioning the structure of the United States of America and saying that each state should be its own country and comparing that to the tyranny of having individual laws for each person, which not only shows how little you understand about the country, but it is also almost as bad as you comparing banning costumes from a movie theater to racism.
You're the only country in the world (I think) were each part of the country has laws different from its neighbour. I fail to see how it makes this country "beautiful".
It was not a comparison either. I don't see how you can think it's a comparison.

You fell so easily into MBH's joke-post
80% of her posts are joke-like posts, and it doesn't make my post any less true. France or Germany shouldn't have to take care or Norway's problems. The US government should take care of the problems in its States.

which shows how eager you are to make America look bad. You have a huge gaping bias reaming with the puss of your ignorance. I don't think there's any hope for you.
I'm open to any discussion. How laws for companies in the US allow much more liberty than in France and I'd prefer if we had this system. How France almost got a sex addict president. How Italy had one. How Spain's and Portugal's unemployment rate, especially for young people, is high. How USA should stop launching wars in the Middle West. How the way the European Economical crysis is handled is bad. How bad the Mexican cartels are.
The US has good laws and bad laws (state dependent or not), the topic at hand is about gun laws, which I consider badly handled in the US. Feel free to open topics and criticize, in a good or bad way, things happening in any countries. If I think it makes sense, I will say it. If I think it's stupid, I'll say it. This has nothing to do with any kind of bias.
Stop thinking anybody disagreeing with you is an Anti-American wuss.

Which brings me to :
idk why europeans think they're superior to americans while they did some pretty useful inventions and innovations. except for germany like it or not they produced most ingenious creations in the past 100 years.
What the fuck are you talking about ? Where did anybody say "Europe > America" ? What do inventions have to do with anything discussed here ? Einstein and Tesla could have been American, it would change nothing to how good or stupid some of their laws are.

Cybaster maybe you should try backing up your arguments with intelligence, the intelligence you didn't use when coding a dumb flashy DBZ character.
I'm a failure. :bigcry: I'd like to be like Jmorphman ...
Except he makes boring characters :mmiley:
;P [/jk]

It's what problem?
state legislation is retarded on something as important as that - it's criminally dumb, even. The whole country should have a regulation for that. This is exactly why the USA as a whole can't be taken seriously on this matter, and why people end up saying what Cybaster says. Don't say "you don't understand that states have their own laws each" as if it was an excuse, because it's not. It's the cause (or a major cause) of the problem.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Foobs on August 04, 2012, 12:14:35 am
You're the only country in the world (I think) were each part of the country has laws different from its neighbour. I fail to see how it makes this country "beautiful".
It was not a comparison either. I don't see how you can think it's a comparison.

It's beatiful because it allows more flexibility and more room for democracy. Each state is big enough to have slightly different needs, and a lot of people with fairly different views on how to handle them. It would be pretty hard for a single federal goverment to handle all of the states and make decisions that pleased the population of those states.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 04, 2012, 12:16:28 am
Cybaster I think the entirity of what Jmorphman is saying is that generalization simply looks bad and doesn't really...eh...HELP whatever points you're trying to make. It just makes them seem less valid. I shouldn't have to point out the whole "go out in the streets and get shot" ideas you've conveyed, just look back and you'll see. I bear no ill will but this is an observation I can't help but make.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 12:20:53 am
It's beatiful because it allows more flexibility and more room for democracy. Each state is big enough to have slightly different needs, and a lot of people with fairly different views on how to handle them. It would be pretty hard for a single federal goverment to handle all of the states and make decisions that pleased the population of those states.
- You're talking in general. This entire discussion is about laws related to guns specifically. In general, letting each state have its own laws is fine, but things like guns are way too important.
- You say that people have different views. So what ? That's true for any place, about any topic, for any population. And yet, there are laws that are common to every state in the entire country, like "slavery is illegal" and other very basic shit. And it still works.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 04, 2012, 12:22:10 am
Guns do not constitute as basic shit when it comes to the laws and regulations that surround them. The views are mixed for a lot of things, but they're extremely mixed for gun laws, hence why they're different.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on August 04, 2012, 12:25:06 am
Why though? Why make gun laws different? No state is actually inherently MORE dangerous than others at it's base level. They are in fact dangerous because of their gun laws, not the other way round. There is not some alien race just over the border who want to kill you, you're not at war with the state next door.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 04, 2012, 12:26:33 am
You say that people have different views. So what ? That's true for any place, about any topic, for any population. And yet, there are laws that are common to the entire country, like "slavery is illegal" and other very basic shit. And it still works.
It's almost as if the federal goverenment can make its own laws which supersede state laws! Why, if only America had a system like that in place!

Why though? Why make gun laws different? No state is actually inherently MORE dangerous than others at it's base level. They are in fact dangerous because of their gun laws, not the other way round. There is not some alien race just over the border who want to kill you, you're not at war with the state next door.
Guns are absolutely something that needs to be regulated on a federal level, but the NRA is gonna make that absolutely impossible. :(
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 04, 2012, 12:29:26 am
why is everyone so afraid, why are they even afraid of voicing their oppinions, it sounds like hyper religious bullshit the way people go about their guns and rights mandated by a decree made when they were trying to get rights to protestants to have guns back in britain.

It almost reminds me of those people that keep quoting leviticus whenever they are asked about gay marriage. Every country has updated their laws to deal with modern bullshit, its part of evolution, and it only makes sense to have those things regulated wholly.
Otherwise you have the blatant stupid shit of "guns are banned in new york, lets go to the next state over to get some legal ones and bring them back here!"
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 04, 2012, 12:34:28 am
why is everyone so afraid, why are they even afraid of voicing their oppinions,
One person does not make an everyone.

But yeah Rajaa, that was weird.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 04, 2012, 12:36:04 am
I just think it's odd that people who don't live in America or don't know exactly how everything works are acting like they do. It's alright to have general knowledge and be reasonable, but then you get "Man you better watch out the streets are full of people with guns." And to think this all came from a thread where people were paying respects to the victims of a theater shooting.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 04, 2012, 12:38:57 am
but then you get "Man you better watch out the streets are full of people with guns."

Well that part is odd, while escalation might be a problem, its not like everyone would carry a gun even if they could, that just wouldnt fit most people's profiles.  What is this, gta? The wild west?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 12:39:12 am
It's almost as if the federal goverenment can make its own laws which supersede state laws! Why, if only America had a system like that in place!
They could probably make some law to regulate guns a little better than the very basic laws many states have ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 04, 2012, 12:40:46 am
but then you get "Man you better watch out the streets are full of people with guns."

Well that part is odd, while escalation might be a problem, its not like everyone would carry a gun even if they could, that just wouldnt fit most people's profiles.  What is this, gta? The wild west?
It's odd, but it's what people have been saying in this thread, as sad as it is.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 04, 2012, 01:03:14 am
Not much to add to Byakko's and Cyanide's latest posts (I was just too slow to write what they wrote :ninja:)

Not 100% relevant :
But yeah Rajaa, that was weird.
I don't understand which of Rajaa's posts you're talking about.

It's odd, but it's what people have been saying in this thread, as sad as it is.
It was probably just an over exaggeration written in the middle of a heated debate to prove a point.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 01:29:10 am
Not 100% relevant :
But yeah Rajaa, that was weird.
I don't understand which of Rajaa's posts you're talking about.
Rajaa not wanting to disclose his position about owning rifles, machine guns and such as opposed to his position on owning a handgun, which is what Iced seemed to be talking about when he mentioned being "afraid of voicing their opinion".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 04, 2012, 04:33:28 am
You're questioning the structure of the United States of America and saying that each state should be its own country and comparing that to the tyranny of having individual laws for each person, which not only shows how little you understand about the country, but it is also almost as bad as you comparing banning costumes from a movie theater to racism.
You're the only country in the world (I think) were each part of the country has laws different from its neighbour. I fail to see how it makes this country "beautiful".
It was not a comparison either. I don't see how you can think it's a comparison.

You fell so easily into MBH's joke-post
80% of her posts are joke-like posts, and it doesn't make my post any less true. France or Germany shouldn't have to take care or Norway's problems. The US government should take care of the problems in its States.

which shows how eager you are to make America look bad. You have a huge gaping bias reaming with the puss of your ignorance. I don't think there's any hope for you.
I'm open to any discussion. How laws for companies in the US allow much more liberty than in France and I'd prefer if we had this system. How France almost got a sex addict president. How Italy had one. How Spain's and Portugal's unemployment rate, especially for young people, is high. How USA should stop launching wars in the Middle West. How the way the European Economical crysis is handled is bad. How bad the Mexican cartels are.
The US has good laws and bad laws (state dependent or not), the topic at hand is about gun laws, which I consider badly handled in the US. Feel free to open topics and criticize, in a good or bad way, things happening in any countries. If I think it makes sense, I will say it. If I think it's stupid, I'll say it. This has nothing to do with any kind of bias.
Stop thinking anybody disagreeing with you is an Anti-American wuss.

Which brings me to :
idk why europeans think they're superior to americans while they did some pretty useful inventions and innovations. except for germany like it or not they produced most ingenious creations in the past 100 years.
What the fuck are you talking about ? Where did anybody say "Europe > America" ? What do inventions have to do with anything discussed here ? Einstein and Tesla could have been American, it would change nothing to how good or stupid some of their laws are.

Cybaster maybe you should try backing up your arguments with intelligence, the intelligence you didn't use when coding a dumb flashy DBZ character.
I'm a failure. :bigcry: I'd like to be like Jmorphman ...
Except he makes boring characters :mmiley:
;P [/jk]

It's what problem?
state legislation is retarded on something as important as that - it's criminally dumb, even. The whole country should have a regulation for that. This is exactly why the USA as a whole can't be taken seriously on this matter, and why people end up saying what Cybaster says. Don't say "you don't understand that states have their own laws each" as if it was an excuse, because it's not. It's the cause (or a major cause) of the problem.


i got it from your posts... the fuck man i really thought you're the pikachu guy?!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on August 04, 2012, 04:48:30 am
I just think it's odd that people who don't live in America or don't know exactly how everything works are acting like they do. It's alright to have general knowledge and be reasonable, but then you get "Man you better watch out the streets are full of people with guns." And to think this all came from a thread where people were paying respects to the victims of a theater shooting.

Doesn't work very well. We can see how it works. It works badly. We have our own countries as counterpoint to this. There are far less gun deaths here, or in the UK (which has a shitload of people and is really cramped) than there are in the US which is when you get right down to it, pretty sparsely populated.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 04, 2012, 05:52:06 am
in my country gun is forbidden for citizen, some badguys have guns from illegal sources, but it doesn't mean we as citizen should counter that by legalizing everybody to own guns just to make it "fair",

here when somebody point a gun to our nose and rob us, we give in, we will lose some money, but at least we have lesser change to get shot since we don't play macho trying to reach our own gun and thus get shot dead and robbed as well.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 04, 2012, 07:59:52 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
the article said:
It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.
 
Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.
 
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
 
France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 – a 67 per cent increase in the past decade – at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population.
:-\
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on August 04, 2012, 08:20:54 am
I said gun deaths! Not violent crime which is everything from guns to fisticuffs.

And no, this is not the UK is inherently safer. Just inherently less gun based.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 04, 2012, 08:24:50 am
Oh, I wasn't replying to anyone. And I wasn't trying to say anything like "oh hoho, see this is what happens when you ban guns." Just something I got linked to and wanted to discuss.

Because I don't really know what to think of it.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on August 04, 2012, 08:34:14 am
Cramped country lacking jobs = more shit like that. Although i'd like to see the results of last year or something as that WAS 2007, would be interesting to see what it was at now.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 09:14:39 am
why is everyone so afraid, why are they even afraid of voicing their oppinions, it sounds like hyper religious bullshit the way people go about their guns and rights mandated by a decree made when they were trying to get rights to protestants to have guns back in britain.
It's not fear. I just don't want to discuss it. And comparing gun laws to "hyper religious bullshit" is almost as bad as Cybaster's racism examples.

Otherwise you have the blatant stupid shit of "guns are banned in new york, lets go to the next state over to get some legal ones and bring them back here!"
Really? You really, really, don't know what you're talking about. It's not that simple because there are federal laws surrounding the interstate commerce of guns and everything else. Gun smuggling is illegal. Once again, please do some research. I'm with MissbHaven, you guys really don't know what you're talking about and I can't take any of you seriously.

The Second Amendment
Interstate Commerce Clause
Gun Control Act of 1968
National Firearms Act
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Firearm Owners Protection Act
The Hughes Amendment
District of Columbia v. Heller
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

You're speaking a bunch of stuff that has already been regulated by the federal government. All of you are just voicing opinions and misconceptions without knowing a lick about the legislation of the government of the United States of America.


I just think it's odd that people who don't live in America or don't know exactly how everything works are acting like they do.
Exactly.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 04, 2012, 11:25:55 am
Because I don't really know what to think of it.
Neither do I.
As many countries in Europe, there's violence in France, especially in suburbs of big cities, with thievery. High taxes, few jobs, lack of a system helping the poor (even though we have one of the best ones AFAIK, but it's never enough, the government doesn't have infinite money, DOH!).
I don't think France is any less violent than the US at its core state.
But still, I don't want to imagine how violent France would become if we legalized guns.

I can't take any of you seriously.

The Second Amendment
[...]
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

Bunch of stuff
Okay okay, we get it. To your eyes, the gun regulation policy in the US is perfect and allows very good controls and regulation. Yet the statistics about deaths by gun speak for themselves.
We're back to the old problem : it's the man, not the gun (since your gun laws are perfect, they can't be questionned). So if it's the man's fault, why so many deaths by gun ? Is it because people in the US give birth to more killers, is it in your genes to go kill your neighbors ? I guess not. Is it a society problem, where there's such a lack of education/job/hope, where there are gangs and whatnot, pushing people to commit crimes ?
If you don't want to put the fault on the guns but on the man, then tell us why men in the US kill more people than in the rest of the world.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 11:38:41 am
...

Dude. This is why I keep ignoring you. I didn't say anything about the perfection of gun laws. I did not imply or insist that the problem is the person, not the gun.

Why are you arguing against things that my post did not say.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 04, 2012, 11:47:51 am
That's what ALL your posts vehicle :
Each time somebody wants to say gun laws in the US are ridiculous or not good enough and should be changed, you defend them by saying we should make more research because we obviously don't know how they work.
This implies you don't want them to change, which means you think they're fine.

I did not imply or insist that the problem is the person, not the gun.
Basic argument: The problem isn't guns, the problem is people.
HAH !!! Unless you want to use this time-continuum paradox where you say your old posts are not relevant, as you did with Iced.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 04, 2012, 11:55:00 am

You're the only country in the world (I think) were each part of the country has laws different from its neighbour.

I know enough about Canada to know Quebec has different laws from Ontario. 

The states and commonwealths here in the USA share sovereignty with the federal government (reservations get a little more complicated) we don't have federal laws about everything because what works in New Jersey doesnt work in Montana and because federal law is limited BY federal law.  It can be changed by amendments to the federal constitution, but that's a slow process since it has to be ratified by the states/commonwealths, picked over by the SCOTUS, etc.

And no I can't legally go to a neighbor state and buy a gun and bring it back across state lines unless it's also legal in my state. I'm sure a lot of people break that law, but the law exists.  People also cross state lines to buy alcohol and bring it back illegally.  There are laws in place that control sales and ownership of firearms. 

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 04, 2012, 12:13:06 pm
I know enough about Canada to know Quebec has different laws from Ontario.
Fair enough. But are gun laws different from one state to another ? (Honest question here, I have no idea)

The states and commonwealths here in the USA share sovereignty with the federal government (reservations get a little more complicated) we don't have federal laws about everything because what works in New Jersey doesnt work in Montana and because federal law is limited BY federal law.  It can be changed by amendments to the federal constitution, but that's a slow process since it has to be ratified by the states/commonwealths, picked over by the SCOTUS, etc.
Keep in mind nobody ever said this was an easy process, and that something like this could be done in a matter of months, or even 5 years. It's obviously complicated, and takes a lot of time and effort.
We've seen progress in the US for things such as healthcare. It can surely change for guns too. The effort just seems to not have been made yet (but yeah, as people said, if you're happy with the way things are, why would you change).

And no I can't legally go to a neighbor state and buy a gun and bring it back across state lines unless it's also legal in my state. I'm sure a lot of people break that law, but the law exists.  People also cross state lines to buy alcohol and bring it back illegally.  There are laws in place that control sales and ownership of firearms. 
But that's the thing : you can't LEGALLY, but you can EASILY. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the borders between states are not as well guarded as the borders with Mexico or even Canada, are they ? A law may exist, but if nobody is here to enforce it, it's a useless law, and it's as if it didn't exist.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on August 04, 2012, 12:15:54 pm
If you don't want to put the fault on the guns but on the man, then tell us why men in the US kill more people than in the rest of the world.

Brazil has stricter gun laws than the US, yet we have more deaths by gun per 100K than they do...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 04, 2012, 12:24:22 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the borders between states are not as well guarded as the borders with Mexico or even Canada, are they ?
Borders between states are generally just a sign that says "welcome to X!".

And that's it.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 04, 2012, 12:38:53 pm
Brazil has stricter gun laws than the US, yet we have more deaths by gun per 100K than they do...
That's why I've been mentionning 1st world countries since the beginning.
I mean no offense to Brazil or any 3rd world country, but when the government and police aren't corrupted, they sadly don't have enough money or power to enforce any law. With reason, they're more concerned about drug cartels and gangs than by asking people if they have a gun at home.
I'm comparing the US to other countries which are comparable : country in the EU, Australia, NZ, Japan, etc. If we start comparing the US with Mexico or Colombia in terms of deaths by guns, obviously US will look like heaven.

Borders between states are generally just a sign that says "welcome to X!".

And that's it.
That's what I thought, but I didn't want anybody to tell me "stupid furansujin thinks everything he sees in movies is true, of course we have regular border patrols and you can't go into another state without getting checked".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 12:52:13 pm
HAH !!! Unless you want to use this time-continuum paradox where you say your old posts are not relevant, as you did with Iced.

Dude. I was clearly talking about the post you were quoting and replying to. You are fucking obnoxious.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bea on August 04, 2012, 01:42:08 pm
That's why I've been mentionning 1st world countries since the beginning.
I mean no offense to Brazil or any 3rd world country, but when the government and police aren't corrupted, they sadly don't have enough money or power to enforce any law. With reason, they're more concerned about drug cartels and gangs than by asking people if they have a gun at home.
I'm comparing the US to other countries which are comparable : country in the EU, Australia, NZ, Japan, etc. If we start comparing the US with Mexico or Colombia in terms of deaths by guns, obviously US will look like heaven.

How are those even comparable?
US dwarfs most of them in terms of landmass and population.
Australia have almost as much landmass than the US, but most of it is desert and barren. Japan is a tiny island that shares no borders, EU countries are small, with an aging population and a larger population density which is easier to give larger police coverage, smaller borders with neighbors that are mostly know for not causing troubles.
You're comparing apples to oranges.

Brazil is much closer to the US in terms of landmass and population than any of those you cited, which makes it a better example to compare the US with.

Also, a link of interest:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/brazil

Quote
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Brazil is 14,800,000 to 17,600,000
The number of licensed gun owners in Brazil is reported to be 1,300,000
The number of registered guns in Brazil is reported to be 5,200,000 to 5,370,500
Unlawfully held guns cannot be counted, but in Brazil there are estimated to be 3,800,000 to 9,499,847

Ban guns in the US and their numbers will be similar to those.

I'd love to see stricter rules to get military grade weapons there, but banning guns won't solve a thing.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 04, 2012, 01:44:15 pm
Dude. I was clearly talking about the post you were quoting and replying to. You are fucking obnoxious.
Dude, you didn't want to question your gun laws, so I expanded the discussion to "if it's not guns (since the laws are fine), it's men". You are fucking obnoxious.

with an aging population and a larger population density which is easier to give larger police coverage, smaller borders with neighbors that are mostly know for not causing troubles.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
The US population is not aging :???:

Also, I doubt Mexico and Cuba can be considered countries causing enough trouble to warrant a "we need to protect ourselves with guns" attitude. We have many immigrants from Africa, China or Romania, we don't feel the need to have guns. I don't know about Brazil though. Unless I'm mistaking you point.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 04, 2012, 02:17:08 pm


And no I can't legally go to a neighbor state and buy a gun and bring it back across state lines unless it's also legal in my state. I'm sure a lot of people break that law, but the law exists.  People also cross state lines to buy alcohol and bring it back illegally.  There are laws in place that control sales and ownership of firearms. 

:bow:
I didnt say it was legal to bring them back, i said that it was easy to bring back legal guns, they would still be illegal in new york even if bought in legal venues outside of new york.
My point was that it defeated the point to ban guns in a state if their neighbours had them readily avaliable. It would be like banning fireworks at a state and having them sold legally in the next.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 02:43:01 pm
Dude, you didn't want to question your gun laws, so I expanded the discussion to "if it's not guns (since the laws are fine), it's men". You are fucking obnoxious.
Actually. I am not the one who compares gun laws and batman costumes to race, sex, gender, and religion. I'm not the one who spams quotes and increase their text size to emulate yelling and a banal superiority complex. I'm not the one who makes ignorant generalizations about an entire people because of an arbitrary law under the regulation of government of a country of which I do not understand at all. I am not the one who thinks that wildly inferred ideas are a form conversation expansion. I am not the one who can't understand sensitivity to victims of spontaneous violent crimes.

But by all means, bring up automatic assault rifles again, even though my post has not mentioned anything about them.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 04, 2012, 02:46:50 pm
stop it! can't you see what is happening here? DC is tearing us apart!!!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: JeanBureau on August 04, 2012, 02:54:38 pm
this topic is still alive ? lol
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 02:58:20 pm
Rajaa, nobody gives a shit about your precious defensive stance, if you don't want to answer questions asked here, if the only thing you can do is change the subject into a circle like you just did again, don't post at all.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 04, 2012, 03:13:23 pm
Dude, you didn't want to question your gun laws, so I expanded the discussion to "if it's not guns (since the laws are fine), it's men". You are fucking obnoxious.
1. I am not the one who compares gun laws and batman costumes to race, sex, gender, and religion.
2. I'm not the one who spams quotes and increase their text size to emulate yelling and a banal superiority complex.
3. I'm not the one who makes ignorant generalizations about an entire people because of an arbitrary law under the regulation of government of a country of which I do not understand at all.
4. I am not the one who thinks that wildly inferred ideas are a form conversation expansion.
5. I am not the one who can't understand sensitivity to victims of spontaneous violent crimes.
6. But by all means, bring up automatic assault rifles again, even though my post has not mentioned anything about them.
1. I'm not the one who compares gun laws with democracy, freedom and beautiful country.
2. I hope you realize I did this because of your failure at reading comprehension when asked about your position on rifles. Had you just said "I don't want to talk about it" 20 pages ago, this would have been avoided. But no, you had to ask "what question?".
3. I'm not the one living in a country where each state has laws so different it can't be taken seriously on gun matters.
4. Cool, because I am. If one posts stupid stuff, I'll post stuff 100 times more stupid to make him see how his post is stupid.
5. I'm not the one who watched the video of the Canadian killer cutting the other guy, thinking it was cool.
6. I won't, since you don't want to discuss them.

To finish a previous answer :
Bia said:
1. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Brazil is much closer to the US in terms of landmass and population than any of those you cited, which makes it a better example to compare the US with.

2. I'd love to see stricter rules to get military grade weapons there, but banning guns won't solve a thing.
1. Well, you're taking into account landmass and population. I'm taking into account the manpower and money the government has to enforce laws they put into place. Thailand is a very small country, yet it has numerous deaths by guns.
It's not all black or white. Landmass and population is indeed a problem, but having the actual power to enforce laws can help.

2. But we're talking about gun regulation, not just flat out ban them (which won't work).

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 03:16:26 pm
Rajaa, nobody gives a shit about your precious defensive stance, if you don't want to answer questions asked here, if the only thing you can do is change the subject into a circle like you just did again, don't post at all.

Yeah, I'm going to listen to the person who is so proud of his flawed logic. And not just about this topic, but in everything you post about. That's why your posts end up being edited 10 hours after they're posted, because you struggle with forming ideas and making them concrete.

When dense people like you and Cybaster stop spitting ignorance and stupid comparisons about U.S. legislation and the attitude of a the country as a whole because of a law and a few posters on this forum, then I will stop posting. But until then, I am going to post, and you're going to keep bringing up assault rifles, grenade launchers and calling state sovereignty retarded, criminal, and dumb.

I don't think so, buster.

      Posted: August 04, 2012, 03:22:59 pm
1. I'm not the one who compares gun laws with democracy, freedom and beautiful country.

The beauty I mentioned was of the diversity of the states. There was no comparison of guns laws to that. Learn to understand points.

2. I hope you realize I did this because of your failure at reading comprehension when asked about your position on rifles. Had you just said "I don't want to talk about it" 20 pages ago, this would have been avoided. But no, you had to ask "what question?".
I wasn't aware what question because Jmorphman never asked me that question in this topic; so my brain couldn't remember something that both Jmorphman and Iced asked me because only one of them asked me. I never imagined you could be this dumb, Cyaster.

3. I'm not the one living in a country where each state has laws so different it can't be taken seriously on gun matters.
I happen to like this country because of this very reason. Among other reasons.

4. Cool, because I am. If one posts stupid stuff, I'll post stuff 100 times more stupid to make him see how his post is stupid.
You must be in a competition with yourself.

5. I'm not the one who watched the video of the Canadian killer cutting the other guy, thinking it was cool.

Irrelevant to this topic. And I never said it was cool. You're such a fucking dumbass for even claiming I said that.

I watched the video and it made me say "what the fuck" because liking dead bodies doesn't make any sense to me. How could someone come to that point of sexual desire?

Your memory is fucking horrible.

6. I won't, since you don't want to discuss them.
So, you finally understand. Somebody give this guy a Scooby Snack.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 03:27:24 pm
Every single of the points you just brought up have already been discussed and answered. Yet you keep bringing them up because you have absolutely nothing left in your hand to save face.
edit - oh, wait, you edited your post.

Quote
The beauty I mentioned was of the diversity of the states. There was no comparison of guns laws to that. Learn to understand points.
Then you are talking about completely unrelated crap. We ARE talking about gun laws, and you're only changing the subject. LEARN TO UNDERSTAND POINTS.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 03:31:39 pm
Everything in this TOPIC has been discussed and answered. And responding to a shithead like Cybaster for bringing up old points makes him the one responsible for bringing up old stuff. I just didn't want him to make the stupid time lapse joke anymore. He was running it into the ground. Iced should have never posted it.

Anything else you want to say?

Quote
Then you are talking about completely unrelated crap. We ARE talking about gun laws, and you're only changing the subject. LEARN TO UNDERSTAND POINTS.

No. You said state sovereignty was retarded, criminal and dumb. That post was made in response to you. You know, if any of you have memory problems, then you can simply reread the old posts of the thread. The amount of denseness I am seeing is outrageous.

I thought Cybaster was sharp, but he's as dull as your logic, Byakko.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 04, 2012, 03:32:27 pm
Hey guys what's going on in this...... ok see you later[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/donotwant.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 03:34:25 pm
Anything else you want to say?
Yes.
Quote
That's why your posts end up being edited 10 hours after they're posted
Not only false, but also completely unrelated to this discussion. How dare you blame Cybaster for doing this when you yourself do the exact same, you hypocrite.

Also, just because YOU don't want to answer a question, doesn't mean the whole topic stops, especially since we don't actually get an answer to the question. If YOU don't want to answer a question, don't post at all, and let others answer it.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 03:39:22 pm
Quote
That's why your posts end up being edited 10 hours after they're posted
Not only false, but also completely unrelated to this discussion. How dare you blame Cybaster for doing this when you yourself do the exact same, you hypocrite.
Actually. I was talking to you. Once again, dude, if you have memory problems or you have dyslexia or something, take your time. Don't hurt yourself.

Also, just because YOU don't want to answer a question, doesn't mean the whole topic stops, especially since we don't actually get an answer to the question. If YOU don't want to answer a question, don't post at all, and let others answer it.
That question is only a fraction of this topic's discussion. More logic failure.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 04, 2012, 03:40:54 pm
Hey guys what's going on in this...... ok see you later

don't go we need your ponyness to spread friendship and magic in this thread.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 03:51:40 pm
Actually. I was talking to you. Once again, dude, if you have memory problems or you have dyslexia or something, take your time. Don't hurt yourself.
What ? How is this making any sense ? What does it change who you were talking to ? You were talking to me, so what ? You said something that is not only false but also completely irrelevant to the discussion. And I knew you were talking to me, so since you pointed it out as if you were correcting me, clearly you didn't understand what I was saying. Or maybe you were just dodging in hope others wouldn't see your shitty logic and your hypocrisy in doing exactly what you say Cybaster shouldn't do.
Quote
That question is only a fraction of this topic's discussion. More logic failure.
Completely irrelevant. More evasive maneuver and cowardice. Either you answer and you participate in the discussion, or you don't post at all. You're not the almighty thread judge who decide where a discussion goes and stops. If you're not participating, you stay out of it. It hasn't moved one step in a while, because of you and your circular logic.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 04:00:48 pm
You thought I was talking to Cybaster because you can't read well, then you wrote a paragraph trying to explain why your point still stands. I give up. I am tired of pointing out how stupid you are -- you are too stupid to understand your own level of stupidity.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 04:03:15 pm
You thought I was talking to Cybaster
No, I didn't. I knew you were talking to me. I just told you that, and yet you insist that I thought something else. Clearly you have a huge problem understanding conversations, maybe you should stay out of that deal for a while, because you're doing nothing good to the discussion, to people on the forum, and to yourself.
AND you're still trying to avoid addressing the issue on your hypocrisy and your cowardice.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 04:07:04 pm
You thought I was talking to Cybaster
No, I didn't. I knew you were talking to me.

Quote
That's why your posts end up being edited 10 hours after they're posted
How dare you blame Cybaster for doing this when you yourself do the exact same, you hypocrite.

LMAO. I don't think so, mister. I mean. You can't be serious. This must be embarrassing for you.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 04:16:19 pm
What exactly don't you understand here ? How do you think I believe you're talking to Cybaster ? Do you maybe have problems with proper English language ?
You say Cybaster brings up irrelevant crap from other topics. And then you do the exact same thing to me. So how am I thinking you're talking to Cybaster ?
And how does that change your hypocrisy, your cowardice and your circular logic ? And your complete inability to understand what people tell you ? Or you believing you know what people think even after they tell you otherwise ? Or your attempt at making everyone shut up just because mighty little you already addressed some questions asked (by saying you don't want to talk about it) ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 04, 2012, 04:25:34 pm
If you can't see in the quote where you quoted my post about YOU editing YOUR posts, and then saying, "how dare you accuse Cyabster of that," when I was clearly talking to you, then I don't know what to tell you, dude.

Look how you're try to bend reality to your favor. This means I have argued with you to the brink of your insanity. I fear if I continue with you, you may seize and die and I may be convicted of cyber bullying and manslaughter.

Byakko: The king of flawed logic and arguing against facts that prove he is wrong and stupid.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on August 04, 2012, 04:44:48 pm
byakko derailed a discussion into some bullshit about semantics he doesn't understand WOW THAT NEVER FUCKING HAPPENS
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 04, 2012, 04:47:00 pm
my adversaries are obliterating each other.  :yippi:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 04, 2012, 04:55:45 pm
I managed to disagree with everyone without accusing anyone of being hitler. Im pretty hip.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 04, 2012, 05:15:29 pm
also you have a deadlink in your signature.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/wtfisthis.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 04, 2012, 05:44:32 pm
If you can't see in the quote where you quoted my post about YOU editing YOUR posts, and then saying, "how dare you accuse Cyabster of that," when I was clearly talking to you
At what point have I said you accused Cybaster of editing his posts ? Nowhere. I very clearly said you accused Cybaster of bringing up irrelevant stuff from other topics (I said it several times), and that's exactly what you were doing with me (bringing up irrelevant stuff from other topics). How are you so strongly incapable of following a discussion properly ? How do you pull the conversation so strongly away from the actual topic, into trying to throw random blames that have nothing to do with anything on other people ?
And as usual, you still talk about irrelevant crap, trying to accuse me of editing my posts or whatever, and you still refuse to go back to the topic and address anything that's actually asked. Who's derailing the topic ? You, and your circular logic, your hypocrisy, your cowardice, and your incompetence.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 04, 2012, 06:32:55 pm
At this point I hardly call this a discussion. I don't believe discussions that are conducted properly end up with people going at each other's throats. I wouldn't even call it a debate, it looks more like squabbling. Generally they just bounce opinions off each other and accept the idea that people think differently and just pitch in every here and there.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 04, 2012, 06:39:41 pm
1. I wasn't aware what question because Jmorphman never asked me that question in this topic; so my brain couldn't remember something that both Jmorphman and Iced asked me because only one of them asked me. I never imagined you could be this dumb, Cyaster.
2. I happen to like this country because of this very reason. Among other reasons.
3. You must be in a competition with yourself.
4. And I never said it was cool. You're such a fucking dumbass for even claiming I said that.
5. So, you finally understand. Somebody give this guy a Scooby Snack.
1. Iced asked you the question DIRECTLY here (Re: bombing at dark knight rises., answer 548, the link doesn't work) and you dodged it, and when he called you out about it, you just failed to understand. That's reading comprehension failure. Had you followed the topic since the beginning, you would have seen the question was asked several times and nobody ever answered it. But the main point is still that you missed Iced' question and you completely dodged it.
2. Whatever. Loving the US for quantity of reasons is fine, since it's a very nice country. Not for gun laws though. If you think it's fine there's death penalty and few gun controls in some States, be my guest. Maybe one day, there'll be a state where blacks and hispanics will be forbidden, or another state where carrying military weapons will be legal, and another state where death will be done by hanging people, and it will be even more wonderful thanks to more diversity. :haw:
3. Yeah, it's sometimes hard to post stuff more stupid than what some other members post. ::)
4. Fair enough. I apologize for that. Still, something like this :
I watched the video
WHY
Why not?
shows you're pretty unsensitive too, so you pretty have no right to say I'm not sensitive either and criticize me for that.
5. Yeah, I understand you're a coward. Now give me my Scooby Snack.

And responding to a shithead like Cybaster for bringing up old points makes him the one responsible for bringing up old stuff.
Because the old stuff that was discussed before is not connected AT ALL with the new stuff, right ? It's all black or white. The gun laws are fine, so we shouldn't be talking about them and we have no right to discuss them because your mighty self said so, but we have no right to discuss other reasons stuff like this happens in the US either ? We can't discuss gun laws, but we can't discuss men either ? Please Master, tell us what we have the right to discuss. Please tell us what kind of answer you want us to give you too. Should it be something like "you're right Rajaa, how could have I been so stupid not to buy 20 guns in case someone wants to rape me in my apartment ?"

At this point I hardly call this a discussion. I don't believe discussions that are conducted properly end up with people going at each other's throats. I wouldn't even call it a debate, it looks more like squabbling. Generally they just bounce opinions off each other and accept the idea that people think differently and just pitch in every here and there.
Hey, Bia and Jmorphman (and sometimes MissB) bring up some interesting points and questions, and I try to answer them and actually have some kind of discussion when Rajaa is not interfering.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on August 05, 2012, 12:07:18 am
I'd remove the sometimes on MissB, her comments are very incisive and even if they're meant to make you feel dumb they do it in such a way that you can go and look at interesting stuff in response.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Is quite interesting though.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 05, 2012, 12:43:11 am
3. I'm not the one living in a country where each state has laws so different it can't be taken seriously on gun matters.
Uhh... why? Actually nevermind, I don't want to be subjected to more idiocy about this.

I wasn't aware what question because Jmorphman never asked me that question in this topic; so my brain couldn't remember something that both Jmorphman and Iced asked me because only one of them asked me.
My question was addressed to both you and MissB. I didn't think I had to specifically ask each of you. But I guess it's all moot now. :|

Once again, dude, if you have memory problems or you have dyslexia or something, take your time. Don't hurt yourself.
There is absolutely no need to make snide remarks like this; it just makes you look a petty loser who can't support their own arguments.

Byakko/Rajaa circlejerk argument said:
:argue:
Oh get a room, nobody cares. Or takes it to PM's, I guess.

2. Whatever. Loving the US for quantity of reasons is fine, since it's a very nice country. Not for gun laws though. If you think it's fine there's death penalty and few gun controls in some States, be my guest. Maybe one day, there'll be a state where blacks and hispanics will be forbidden, or another state where carrying military weapons will be legal, and another state where death will be done by hanging people, and it will be even more wonderful thanks to more diversity. :haw:
Look, I am very pro-gun control (and anti-death penalty!), but never in a million years would I try to suggest that those who don't agree with me must also believe in segregation or death by hangings.

I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, are you serious? This is the equivalent of a Godwin, which AFAIK, has not happened in this thread yet.

But now it has, bravo.

I managed to disagree with everyone without accusing anyone of being hitler. Im pretty hip.
That's because...

YOU ARE HITLER
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 05, 2012, 01:03:33 am
2. Whatever. Loving the US for quantity of reasons is fine, since it's a very nice country. Not for gun laws though. If you think it's fine there's death penalty and few gun controls in some States, be my guest. Maybe one day, there'll be a state where blacks and hispanics will be forbidden, or another state where carrying military weapons will be legal, and another state where death will be done by hanging people, and it will be even more wonderful thanks to more diversity. :haw:
Look, I am very pro-gun control (and anti-death penalty!), but never in a million years would I try to suggest that those who don't agree with me must also believe in segregation or death by hangings.
Hang on, the point of that is just about states having different laws.
It wouldn't be fine that one state permits death by hanging or segregation, because those are important matters that go beyond the state, it's something the country as a whole needs to regulate. In general, each state can have its own laws, but there are matters on which it's not acceptable. Segregation is one - just an example. And - here's the point : - gun control might be another. I'm pretty sure there are other matters for which this is the case - recently, health care was being discussed. Well, gun control could be the same.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 05, 2012, 02:47:40 am
Look, I am very pro-gun control (and anti-death penalty!), but never in a million years would I try to suggest that those who don't agree with me must also believe in segregation or death by hangings.
Never ever have I implied Rajaa was in favour of segregation or that he was pro-death penalty by hanging. That's not the point I'm bringing AT ALL.

What Byakko said. Having different laws in different States for small matters is fine. You can even have laws that are city dependent (and pretty stupid) (http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/7268245/Town-introduces-female-parking-spots) and that's not a problem. But when it comes to important matters it should not be state dependent.

I can make stupid posts to counter stupid posts, but seriously, I'm not saying "you don't agree with me = you believe in segregation" AT ALL. I'm saying : Segregation is an important matter, and something that is to be dealt with for the whole country. Same for military weapons and hanging people. If you think the country is beautiful because important matters can be dealt with on a State-by-State basis, then you're wrong.
My point is that gun control is a matter that is important enough to be discussed by the country as a whole.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 05, 2012, 07:59:38 am
Your examples and metaphors are some of worst I've ever seen and they don't deserve responses.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 05, 2012, 12:02:18 pm
Cool, because you're not going to answer to any question anyway. So now, stay out of the topic and let people who want to discuss do it normally, instead of unilaterally trying to impose what people should have the right to discuss or not.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Is quite interesting though.
Dunno what to say about this. Showing so many things happen in the US doesn't tell much, since the table shows not only mass shooting, but focuses a lot on school shootings.
Something like this
Quote
A Virginia Tech police officer was shot and killed by a 22-year old student of Radford University. The shooting took place in a parking lot on Virginia Tech's campus.
doesn't feel very useful to me. They could have separated mass shooting from school shootings.
One coult think the gun policies in some States give easy access to guns to students, but even in other countries, a lot of these shootings were done by students too. So I dunno...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 05, 2012, 12:41:22 pm
Borders between states are generally just a sign that says "welcome to X!".
And that's it.

And the highway patrol waiting to catch you speeding

I managed to disagree with everyone without accusing anyone of being hitler. Im pretty hip.

(http://picturehoster.info/images/78603289340219003809.gif)


My question was addressed to both you and MissB.

Did I answer?  I get dizzy rereading at this point.   ;P 

I'm not sure how many times some of us have to repeat there are already federal gun control laws that apply to every state/commonwealth.  Some individual states/commonwealths have stricter yet laws and some cities within those states/commonwealths have pretty much banned any kinds of firearms at all.  Our states/commonwealths each have the power and responsibility for the public safety of its citizens, (Vermont is not responsible for Nebraska's citizens) and because of the demographics of the individual states/commonwealths gun laws are going to differ from state to state.  Hunting with a rifle is outlawed in Ohio (for example) because it's a populated state and a rifle bullet carries a whole lot farther than a shotgun, muzzle loader or arrow and has a greater chance of hitting something besides bambi.  However in South Dakota, not only are there not very many people, but there isn't tree cover for sneaking up on bambi so you need to hunt him with a rifle.  Insisting gun laws be the same for both states is either going to mean more people, property and cows in Ohio get shot up or the bambi population in South Dakota will be out of control (and that in turn causes more damage to people and property). 

I LOVE these kinds of debates!  Keep it coming.

:bow:
 
PS Doppelganger, is same sex marriage an important issue?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 05, 2012, 12:59:02 pm
Quote
I'm not sure how many times some of us have to repeat there are already federal gun control laws that apply to every state/commonwealth.  Some individual states/commonwealths have stricter yet laws and some cities within those states/commonwealths have pretty much banned any kinds of firearms at all.  Our states/commonwealths each have the power and responsibility for the public safety of its citizens, (Vermont is not responsible for Nebraska's citizens) and because of the demographics of the individual states/commonwealths gun laws are going to differ from state to state.  Hunting with a rifle is outlawed in Ohio (for example) because it's a populated state and a rifle bullet carries a whole lot farther than a shotgun, muzzle loader or arrow and has a greater chance of hitting something besides bambi.  However in South Dakota, not only are there not very many people, but there isn't tree cover for sneaking up on bambi so you need to hunt him with a rifle.  Insisting gun laws be the same for both states is either going to mean more people, property and cows in Ohio get shot up or the bambi population in South Dakota will be out of control (and that in turn causes more damage to people and property).
Very easy. Default law for every state is made more restrictive to just small handguns, and hunting-related stuff are the exception. It shouldn't matter if it's in different states. You're talking as if the law in Ohio and in South Dakota considered that handguns and sniping rifles were the same thing and had the same law (within the same state). South Dakota needs a permit for hunting rifles, I reckon ? So what's the problem ? With the same law for SD and Ohio, you just need the permit to only be valid in areas where hunting is fine, that means not Ohio. It would still be the same law, you would just need to define areas where one same permit is valid. How do you think other countries regulate their Bambi invasions ?

You may tell me that it's already the case, fine. But the point is : how did the Aurora guy get his hands on so many heavy weapons and bullets in just four months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Colorado tells me you don't need a permit for open carry in Colorado. Why ? Is that normal ? Does that apply to the kind of weapons the guy had ? If yes, how and why, and if not, how did he have those weapons regardless ?

     Posted: August 05, 2012, 01:37:26 pm
Quote
PS Doppelganger, is same sex marriage an important issue?
It's certainly not something that should depend on the place. It doesn't matter if there are people in Ohio who disagree with people in South Dakota about that subject. It's not something that should be decided by people who agree or disagree with each other.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 05, 2012, 01:42:22 pm

PS Doppelganger, is same sex marriage an important issue?
Good question. To me yes (in the sense the law should be the same in the whole country). It's hard to believe people from different states would think so differently people in one state would be 80% in favour of gay marriage and in another state 80% against.
Still, that's not the point : why would gay people have the right to get married in a State, and in the next state they wouldn't be able ? What makes it so disgusting that they shouldn't be allowed to get married ?

Just because a bunch of people don't like gays shouldn't mean gay marriage should be forbidden. Just because some people are racist shouldn't mean there should be segregation. Just because some people are atheist shouldn't mean some religions should be forbidden (and vice-versa).

One of the main points is to change to follow changes occuring in the world. Gays have the right to be out in the society and can be "proud" of being gay. Society has changed, and laws should reflect changes in society. That's what I think anyway.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 05, 2012, 01:52:38 pm
Careful not to confuse "should the law be the same everywhere" with "should the law agree with me everywhere".
Whichever the law is, it should be the same in the whole country.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 05, 2012, 02:00:28 pm
Indeed, sorry for my wording.

Actually, I wasn't so much in favour of Gay Marriage some time ago. Not that I was explicitely against it, but I considered marriage was for heterosexual couples. But change in society and knowing gay people kinda made me rethink my point of view.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 05, 2012, 02:03:00 pm


You may tell me that it's already the case, fine. But the point is : how did the Aurora guy get his hands on so many heavy weapons and bullets in just four months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Colorado tells me you don't need a permit for open carry in Colorado. Why ? Is that normal ? Does that apply to the kind of weapons the guy had ? If yes, how and why, and if not, how did he have those weapons regardless ?


There are several states where open carry is permitted and it's normal.  Those being rural states (such as Colorado although I can't imagine cities like Denver encouraging open carry) and there are good reasons for "packing" a handgun and keeping a loaded rifle in a truck gun rack.  I have never lived in Colorado, bought or carried a weapon in Colorado, so I'm not familiar with the laws there.  Had that Aurora psycho known the right people and had enough money he could have got all that stuff in a day. 

There are an estimated 200,000,000 firearms in the possession of civilians in the USA and every time someone mentions gun control laws or an election comes up where a Democrat president may be elected, the NRA starts the chicken-little crying that sends people out buying more guns and amo just in case they won't be around any more.

I don't have an answer on how to prevent a psycho intent on some kind of rampage from killing people.  The guns already exist, he's still going to get his hands on them.  Making it criminal to sell firearms will just mean more organized crime, it wont mean fewer deaths.

And no rifles don't need a permit in South Dakota, anyone can purchase a rifle or shotgun with no permit. People do need to purchase a hunting license though for certain game animals.  Pest animals (and injured animals) can be killed with no license. 

Keep in mind that even though South Dakota has open carry, localities (towns) are able to make discharging a weapon in the town limits a criminal offense.  So it's not like everyone can just go around shooting for no reason.

And I was gonna make another point, but I forgot what it was.



PS Doppelganger, is same sex marriage an important issue?
Good question. To me yes (in the sense the law should be the same in the whole country). It's hard to believe people from different states would think so differently people in one state would be 80% in favour of gay marriage and in another state 80% against.
Still, that's not the point : why would gay people have the right to get married in a State, and in the next state they wouldn't be able ? What makes it so disgusting that they shouldn't be allowed to get married ?

Just because a bunch of people don't like gays shouldn't mean gay marriage should be forbidden. Just because some people are racist shouldn't mean there should be segregation. Just because some people are atheist shouldn't mean some religions should be forbidden (and vice-versa).

One of the main points is to change to follow changes occuring in the world. Gays have the right to be out in the society and can be "proud" of being gay. Society has changed, and laws should reflect changes in society. That's what I think anyway.

If it were not for the whole states rights issue, there would have probably been a law preventing it nationwide by now.  Bush was politicing for a federal law/amendment to the US constitution making marriage between one man and one woman.  Women were allowed to vote one state at a time and it will be the same with same sex marriage.

Does every country in Europe allow same sex marriage?

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 05, 2012, 02:13:41 pm
There are several states where open carry is permitted and it's normal.
NOT THE POINT. At all.

I don't have an answer on how to prevent a psycho intent on some kind of rampage from killing people.  The guns already exist, he's still going to get his hands on them.  Making it criminal to sell firearms will just mean more organized crime, it wont mean fewer deaths.
I'm pretty sure this was brought up several times already. Still not the point.

Keep in mind that even though South Dakota has open carry, localities (towns) are able to make discharging a weapon in the town limits a criminal offense.  So it's not like everyone can just go around shooting for no reason.
And yet you were just making a point that those laws don't matter when someone really wants to kill people. No, I'm not going to keep that in mind.

Does every country in Europe allow same sex marriage?
Not relevant at all. They are different countries, which is VASTLY different. People arguing that each state has its own laws always blur out this major distinction.

Are you saying different states should be able to have their own laws and be considered the same as whole countries ? Because there are different people with different tastes, they can have their own laws ? Well, if people in Arkansas like a kingdom better, shouldn't they be allowed to have their king rather than a President common to every state, because the election results clearly show they didn't want to elect that guy ? If people in Washington want an emperor, why not start proclaiming "long live the new Empire of Washington" ?

You want to compare different states in the US with the different countries in Europe ? Earn it, split USA in different countries. Have your own seat at worldwide congresses. Go to war with each other.

Not all countries in Europe have the same laws about same sex marriage or gun control. You know why ? Because they each have their own government. States don't. There isn't a President of European Union. If you disagree so much with each other, show it, show that having one single government is contradictory.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 05, 2012, 02:38:20 pm
There are several states where open carry is permitted and it's normal.
NOT THE POINT. At all.

Then why did you ask me if it was normal?  I was answering your questions.

Quote
And yet you were just making a point that those laws don't matter when someone really wants to kill people. Choose.
  Choose what?  Am I missing your point? I'm saying laws exist.  But a law does not prevent a crime, only makes that crime punishable.

Quote
Does every country in Europe allow same sex marriage?
Not relevant at all. They are different countries, which is VASTLY different. People arguing that each state has its own laws always blur out this major distinction.

Are you saying different states should be able to have their own laws and be considered the same as whole countries ? Because there are different people with different tastes, they can have their own laws ? Well, if people in Arkansas like a kingdom better, shouldn't they be allowed to have their king rather than a President common to every state, because the election results clearly show they didn't want to elect that guy ? If people in Washington want an emperor, why not start proclaiming "long live the new Empire of Washington" ?

You want to compare different states in the US with the different countries in Europe ? Earn it, split USA in different countries. Have your own seat at worldwide congresses. Go to war with each other.

Not all countries in Europe have the same laws about same sex marriage or gun control. You know why ? Because they each have their own government. States don't. If you disagree so much with each other, show it.

I asked about laws in Europe because of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

Not because I'm trying to compare Texas to Germany. 

:bow:


Oh by the way, we did split into different countries and go to war with each other.  And states most certainly DO have their own governments.   
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 05, 2012, 02:50:13 pm
Then why did you ask me if it was normal?  I was answering your questions.
You answered part of the question and then dropped the other part, which was the point.

edit - if you're just telling me that you don't know what the law is for those heavy weapons, then no, you're not answering my question.

Quote
Choose what?  Am I missing your point? I'm saying laws exist.  But a law does not prevent a crime, only makes that crime punishable.
You can't make a point that even if there were stricter laws there would still be gun deaths, and then make a point that there is a law that prevents people from entering a town and start shooting. Even if both points are true on their own, they don't fit in the same logic. Or you only have one point, which is that laws don't work, but in this case you can't tell me to keep in mind that there is a law that prevents so and so. I don't have to keep it in mind if you just said it doesn't work.

Quote
I asked about laws in Europe because of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

Not because I'm trying to compare Texas to Germany.
It doesn't say there's a President of the European Union who is on the same step as the President of the United States and who is elected regularly, picks his government, and has authority over everyone inside (and then lets everyone disagree and split up because he's nice like that). The European Union is born out of an agreement on financial and technological markets.
EU exists because everyone in it agrees with each other. You're making a point that states exist because everyone disagrees. So yes, the comparison is null and void.

Quote
Oh by the way, we did split into different countries and go to war with each other.  And states most certainly DO have their own governments.   
So the presidency is completely meaningless then, okay.

      Posted: August 05, 2012, 03:13:32 pm
Just to clear up the matter on whether you are or not answering my questions about gun laws and their relevance.
What you are saying is that there may be a law (for that particular State), but that law is useless considering the guy did get those weapons. This is just making an excuse. What I'm asking you is if that's supposed to be normal, to be considered the norm. You're responding by saying that even if there is a law, anyone who wants to can bypass it and still get those kinds of weapons. You're not saying "that is perfectly fine if someone can do that" or "no, it shouldn't happen", you're only saying "well, a stricter law would fail to prevent that". This is only providing excuses as to why it happens. All it does is make your answer sound like "well, he can, therefore it's what we're considering normal" (normal as in the norm, what everyone does) even if you're trying not to say it.
And I'm not taking that as an answer.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 05, 2012, 04:11:34 pm
Then why did you ask me if it was normal?  I was answering your questions.
You answered part of the question and then dropped the other part, which was the point.

edit - if you're just telling me that you don't know what the law is for those heavy weapons, then no, you're not answering my question.

Quote
Choose what?  Am I missing your point? I'm saying laws exist.  But a law does not prevent a crime, only makes that crime punishable.
You can't make a point that even if there were stricter laws there would still be gun deaths, and then make a point that there is a law that prevents people from entering a town and start shooting. Even if both points are true on their own, they don't fit in the same logic. Or you only have one point, which is that laws don't work, but in this case you can't tell me to keep in mind that there is a law that prevents so and so. I don't have to keep it in mind if you just said it doesn't work.

Quote
I asked about laws in Europe because of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

Not because I'm trying to compare Texas to Germany.
It doesn't say there's a President of the European Union who is on the same step as the President of the United States and who is elected regularly, picks his government, and has authority over everyone inside (and then lets everyone disagree and split up because he's nice like that). The European Union is born out of an agreement on financial and technological markets.
EU exists because everyone in it agrees with each other. You're making a point that states exist because everyone disagrees. So yes, the comparison is null and void.

Quote
Oh by the way, we did split into different countries and go to war with each other.  And states most certainly DO have their own governments.   
So the presidency is completely meaningless then, okay.

      Posted: August 05, 2012, 03:13:32 pm
Just to clear up the matter on whether you are or not answering my questions about gun laws and their relevance.
What you are saying is that there may be a law (for that particular State), but that law is useless considering the guy did get those weapons. This is just making an excuse. What I'm asking you is if that's supposed to be normal, to be considered the norm. You're responding by saying that even if there is a law, anyone who wants to can bypass it and still get those kinds of weapons. You're not saying "that is perfectly fine if someone can do that" or "no, it shouldn't happen", you're only saying "well, a stricter law would fail to prevent that". This is only providing excuses as to why it happens. All it does is make your answer sound like "well, he can, therefore it's what we're considering normal" (normal as in the norm, what everyone does) even if you're trying not to say it.
And I'm not taking that as an answer.

I hate the he said/I said back and forth because it takes me forever to get the quote brackets right.  So.

I suspect language barriers might be causing some confusion.  When you asked me if something was normal were you asking if it was a usual occurrence (fact) or if I thought people should be doing that (my opinion)?

Also, I'm not sure you know/understand what shared sovereignty means, but then I'm not sure people here who have been subjected to 12+ years of studying USA and state history and government do either.  It's almost impossible for me to put in simple terms, but each state has it's own government elected by the citizens of that state and has it's own constitution governing that state ratified by the citizens of that state.  The president of the USA does not pick his own government and does not have authority over everyone inside.  There are checks and balances, congress, SCOTUS.  It would be a terrible idea for a president to declare a law that every state had to follow without question.  It doesnt work that way and shouldnt work that way.

Who makes decisions for the European Union?

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 05, 2012, 04:35:01 pm
Quote
I suspect language barriers might be causing some confusion.  When you asked me if something was normal were you asking if it was a usual occurrence (fact) or if I thought people should be doing that (my opinion)?
Knowing that the response that "who cares, it would happen even if it was illegal" was rejected several times by several people, which one do you think it is ?

Quote
Also, I'm not sure you know/understand what shared sovereignty means, but then I'm not sure people here who have been subjected to 12+ years of studying USA and state history and government do either.
I wish you stopped saying "you don't know about X, you haven't studied, you don't know what the law is". It doesn't matter, and it's not an excuse. People from the outside do not have to learn that to see that something is not working right.

Quote
Who makes decisions for the European Union?
There is no such thing as "one decision for the entire EU". The countries just discuss with each other and then agree (or not) to put some things in common. Because there is no such thing as one government of the EU. But do not try to say it's the same for each State in the US.

You're equating one State with one country, this is the problem because it makes it sound like you're arguing there really isn't one country called the United States of America, just a bunch of States that are as good as countries on their own. Throughout the entire topic, every time someone has said anything about laws in the US, it was about the US as a single country. This is not a mistake on their part, or lack of education or of understanding of how States work. People in each State recognize their own State as if it was a country, is what you're saying ; all this shows is that they do not have a large enough vision to understand they're really not.
One State in the US is not the same as one country in the EU. Your position in the world is not "50 States that have one representative", it's "one representative for one country".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 05, 2012, 04:55:49 pm
There is no such thing as "one decision for the entire EU". The countries just discuss with each other and then agree (or not) to put some things in common. Because there is no such thing as one government of the EU. But do not try to say it's the same for each State in the US.

Ummmmmmmmm that's not right. There are a lot of EU directives, which were originally intended to only require a particular result without dictating the means, but they have since turned into de facto if not nominal laws[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/book_onthego.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 05, 2012, 05:03:12 pm
Those directives are established when each country agrees to reach that common goal, as I was saying. And then, when one country fails to achieve that goal, the other countries (in the form of the European Commission) may take legal action. This is still treated as an agreement between each country, like a contract they make with each other and with legal consequences should one party fail to uphold it. That's still not comparable to a single government, the parties involved are still different entities signing that contract.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 05, 2012, 05:18:16 pm
You make it sound like those directives are always an unanimous decision, which I am pretty sure is not the case. I know Germany pays significant fines every year for refusing to implement a number of (extremely stupid) ones :P
[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/sit.png[/avatar]
The two systems are perfectly comparable, and if you do compare them you will find they are quite different in various aspects ;P
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 05, 2012, 05:32:16 pm
Those directives are on the same "very important stuff" as what Cybaster and I were suggesting for the US, they're standards for ethics, environment, technology and safety, transport... And as standards, they're mostly born out of a common agreement (baring some exceptions where a minority doesn't agree with the others anyway, as you say). They have nothing to do with the more specific laws each country can have on much broader subjects.

Edit - incidentally, same sex marriage should not be a directive for the EU, but it should be a law in a given country - say, France, Germany, or the US. Gun control should probably be a directive in theory (I don't think it is, is it ?), but it just so happens that every country in the EU already considers it common sense.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 05, 2012, 06:01:45 pm
Quote
I suspect language barriers might be causing some confusion.  When you asked me if something was normal were you asking if it was a usual occurrence (fact) or if I thought people should be doing that (my opinion)?
Knowing that the response that "who cares, it would happen even if it was illegal" was rejected several times by several people, which one do you think it is ?
  I have no idea, which is why I asked the question.  If you can't (ie: are unable to) give an answer, thats OK.

Quote
Quote
Also, I'm not sure you know/understand what shared sovereignty means, but then I'm not sure people here who have been subjected to 12+ years of studying USA and state history and government do either.
I wish you stopped saying "you don't know about X, you haven't studied, you don't know what the law is". It doesn't matter, and it's not an excuse. People from the outside do not have to learn that to see that something is not working right.

I can and will debate anything ad infinitum with someone who takes the time to at least try to understand facts.  Trying to debate with someone who's posts project emotion driven hysteria isnt really very fun.
example
Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty

Quote
Quote
Who makes decisions for the European Union?
There is no such thing as "one decision for the entire EU". The countries just discuss with each other and then agree (or not) to put some things in common. Because there is no such thing as one government of the EU. But do not try to say it's the same for each State in the US.

You're equating one State with one country, this is the problem because it makes it sound like you're arguing there really isn't one country called the United States of America, just a bunch of States that are as good as countries on their own. Throughout the entire topic, every time someone has said anything about laws in the US, it was about the US as a single country. This is not a mistake on their part, or lack of education or of understanding of how States work. People in each State recognize their own State as if it was a country, is what you're saying ; all this shows is that they do not have a large enough vision to understand they're really not.
One State in the US is not the same as one country in the EU. Your position in the world is not "50 States that have one representative", it's "one representative for one country".

I'm not going to go back through and requote every time someone mentioned State VS US Federal law, so no ...this statement: 
Quote
Throughout the entire topic, every time someone has said anything about laws in the US, it was about the US as a single country.
  is untrue.

I'm not trying to compare any states to any countries, I dont have a clue how the European Union works and thats why I asked.  I'm not afraid to admit I dont know something, to take the time to ask questions so I can better understand how things work and why someone has a different POV from me. 

Someone who doesnt have a clue what shared sovereignty means only shows ignorance by trying to discuss any of the inner workings of the US Government and how it applies to states rights.

Now.  If I have misunderstood any of your statements, questions, motives or rantings feel free to correct me and I will apologize.

:bow:

Added:  so is same sex marriage "very important stuff"? (ie: standards for ethics?)

edit!  Dangit Val, we need one of those warnings if someone EDITS before we post!!! 
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 05, 2012, 06:07:42 pm
I'm not going to go back through and requote every time someone mentioned State VS US Federal law, so no ...this statement: 
Quote
Throughout the entire topic, every time someone has said anything about laws in the US, it was about the US as a single country.
  is untrue.
Anytime someone not from the US and not defending the right of States to have their own gun laws. Thought the context of this topic made it obvious since it's the very subject people get angry on.
As for the rest of your post I already said why it was not an answer. And it's also quite enough now that you're just getting haughty if people don't know every little detail of the law and never giving a clear cut answer on whether you think it's okay for someone to just buy the kind of weapons the Aurora guy had - no matter which State he is in, or even which country he's in.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 06, 2012, 01:47:34 am
i think there is already a difference between rifles that are used by armed forces to ones that can be bought by civilian, civilian version can't be set into auto fire or something like that.

I personally can't see the point in legalizing assault rifles for civilian even with that downgrade, by looking at their category's name it should be already clear why.
 
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 06, 2012, 02:03:23 am
states exist because everyone disagrees.
Hmm, yes I think that's a pretty good description, if this was added to that statement: the federal government exists beause everyone agrees.

People from the outside do not have to learn that to see that something is not working right.
They do when they have no idea what they're talking about. And it truly seems (to me) that you don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 02:29:15 am
They do when they have no idea what they're talking about. And it truly seems (to me) that you don't know what you're talking about.
Okay, so I'm wrong in thinking something's not right ? Then it means it was perfectly normal for this random guy to even have shotguns, assault rifles and smoke grenades. I thought you were saying the opposite a little while ago.
I'm not even talking about States law here. You guys are the ones who keep throwing in my face that each State has different laws, and maybe it's normal in one State and not in another. I don't even care. It's not an excuse. I'm saying, if anyone can get this kind of armament, then something's seriously wrong. Do you agree or do you disagree ? Do you think a given person, regardless of his State or country, can just buy those weapons ? Or maybe you are even saying that, depending on the State, it might be fine to get a handful of heavy weaponry like that ? And the capacity of a bad guy to ignore a law that would ban them anyway is not an excuse.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on August 06, 2012, 02:36:01 am
god damn Byakko, i wanted to answer you but you edited your post 2 or 3 times and now my point is all fucked :P
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 06, 2012, 03:00:16 am
Okay, so I'm wrong in thinking something's not right ?
That's not at all what I was saying and you know it. I'm saying you obviously don't understand the way the American government works, and thus, shouldn't really be trying to debate about it.

Then it means it was perfectly normal for this random guy to even have shotguns, assault rifles and smoke grenades. I thought you were saying the opposite a little while ago.
I'll repeat this: That's not at all what I was saying and you know it. Stop being retarded.

I am very pro-strong gun control; I've said this many times in the thread so I don't know why you're confused about this. I am also anti-uninformed blanket statements.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on August 06, 2012, 04:18:02 am
the number of rifle homicides is proportionately very small. 4% in 2005. that includes all rifles. consider that semi automatic rifles are only a fraction of that four percent. it's not a common issue. handguns are the more dangerous weapon because they're not anywhere as fucking evident as a rifle if carried around. take these "military rifles anyone can get at walmart!!" out of the equation and you've still got a lot of gun death going on.
Quote
In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.

could gun control laws be improved? maybe. could there be better background checks? maybe, but holmes was (other than a speeding ticket) clean, so if you leave out people like him you're leaving out, well, a lot of people. narrowing it down to "WELL, THEN TAKE AWAY EVERYBODY'S GUNS" and thinking that's going to solve everything and everybody will be safe is dumb. it's so much more complicated than that. it's a cultural problem. it's not that fucking simple. the next psycho of the day  could just run over people with a truck instead of using guns. society needs to be better prepared for people that malfunction. be it damage done through guns, trucks, knives, you can never be completely sure of who's going to snap.


also have some stats i guess
Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 06, 2012, 06:04:39 am
OK, to hell with gun control, you crazy cowboys can have all the guns you want to shoot ponies, bambies, tremor worms, or people with,

lets concentrate about ammunition control, everybody get rubber tipped bullets, it would be sufficient to defend yourself or annoy your neighbor, it will sting like hell, and leave you sore for days but it won't kill nobody, meaning even more exciting gunfight, what great solution.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 06, 2012, 06:33:48 am
tremor worms
They're called graboids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graboid) you ass-blaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graboid#Ass-blaster) >:[

lets concentrate about ammunition control, everybody get rubber tipped bullets, it would be sufficient to defend yourself or annoy your neighbor, it will sting like hell, and leave you sore for days but it won't kill nobody, meaning even more exciting gunfight, what great solution.
Rubber bullets can still kill people.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 09:52:08 am
That's not at all what I was saying and you know it.
Yes, I know. I'm also making a point that saying "the law works like this here" or "stricter laws would only make the same problems more illegal, not less numerous" is not an excuse, and thus should be taken out of the discussion. It doesn't matter if you tell me I don't know how States sovereignty works.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 06, 2012, 12:22:14 pm
I'd remove the sometimes on MissB, her comments are very incisive and even if they're meant to make you feel dumb they do it in such a way that you can go and look at interesting stuff in response.



Is quite interesting though.

I was going to wait till I could see that before I answered, but I get the "oops can't connect" warning every time.  I guess my NRA ISP doesnt want me seeing that.   I gave up intending to make people feel dumb when I stopped teaching seminars several years ago.

But I still thank you for the compliment and would you consider having my babies?



As for the rest of your post I already said why it was not an answer. And it's also quite enough now that you're just getting haughty if people don't know every little detail of the law and never giving a clear cut answer on whether you think it's okay for someone to just buy the kind of weapons the Aurora guy had - no matter which State he is in, or even which country he's in.

Hardly "haughty" cupcake... anyone squawking "thats not an excuse" as often as you do (as if there could ever be an excuse for that kind of slaughter) isn't enough of a challenge for me to waste "haughty" on.

could gun control laws be improved? maybe. could there be better background checks? maybe, but holmes was (other than a speeding ticket) clean, so if you leave out people like him you're leaving out, well, a lot of people. narrowing it down to "WELL, THEN TAKE AWAY EVERYBODY'S GUNS" and thinking that's going to solve everything and everybody will be safe is dumb. it's so much more complicated than that. it's a cultural problem. it's not that fucking simple. the next psycho of the day  could just run over people with a truck instead of using guns. society needs to be better prepared for people that malfunction. be it damage done through guns, trucks, knives, you can never be completely sure of who's going to snap.

THIS, oh yes!!!  You are amazing, I want you to have my babies too.  Just this once lets use big bold font and repeat that.

Quote
the next psycho of the day  could just run over people with a truck instead of using guns. society needs to be better prepared for people that malfunction. be it damage done through guns, trucks, knives, you can never be completely sure of who's going to snap.

:bow:






Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 06, 2012, 12:26:35 pm
Holmes wasnt really clean, his psychiatrists even had annotations about what he wanted to do, security checks failed there.Also any kind of flags that should have been raised by someone getting four guns in four months.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 01:24:27 pm
(as if there could ever be an excuse for that kind of slaughter)
And yet you still insist that "any psycho could always get a knife or a truck". You're not excusing the slaughter, you're excusing the way he got his tools for it. Just because he could have used anything, doesn't lift the blame off how he got what he wanted ; you're just saying "it happened because it would have happened anyway". That is making up excuses.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: hjk on August 06, 2012, 02:26:28 pm
Byakko... stop.

the number of rifle homicides is proportionately very small. 4% in 2005. that includes all rifles. consider that semi automatic rifles are only a fraction of that four percent. it's not a common issue. handguns are the more dangerous weapon because they're not anywhere as fucking evident as a rifle if carried around. take these "military rifles anyone can get at walmart!!" out of the equation and you've still got a lot of gun death going on.
Beautiful post.


could gun control laws be improved? maybe. could there be better background checks? maybe, but holmes was (other than a speeding ticket) clean, so if you leave out people like him you're leaving out, well, a lot of people. narrowing it down to "WELL, THEN TAKE AWAY EVERYBODY'S GUNS" and thinking that's going to solve everything and everybody will be safe is dumb. it's so much more complicated than that. it's a cultural problem. it's not that fucking simple. the next psycho of the day  could just run over people with a truck instead of using guns. society needs to be better prepared for people that malfunction. be it damage done through guns, trucks, knives, you can never be completely sure of who's going to snap.
I was about to agree with this, but it's not necessarily true. I'll have to ask precisely what you meant by "culture," but I'll take a crack at it before getting that answer anyway.
What you've said is an argument that one will inevitably encounter whenever a debate about gun-control arises - the general, "It's not only the laws, but the culture." The fact is that it's not the culture, but it is actually how each independent person feels and how much credence they give to their own beliefs - i.e. There are gun owners who feel as though guns should only be used for hunting or target practice and there are some who believe that killing people with guns should be legal. (Not to say you weren't suggesting this but) Gun-Ownership Advocates can be broken down into many groups themselves and then there are still more that would hold independent views. The title "Gun-Culture" ignores this fact and doesn't really take into account that there are responsible gun-owners and some who you just can't stop. A person still has the freedom to pretend that they buy into something then turn around and snap when they feel like it, you just never know. The fact is shootings like these can't be controlled through any means unfortunately. Many of them can just happen.
Some of you brought up the point that most of these guys have records or else are visiting psychiatrists, but then again there are still thousands of people who others "suspect" could do something like this but never do... that issue can go both ways - I'm sure it came as a shock to most that Chris Benoit killed his family. You just never know. Changing a culture won't make this that much more predictable; it will still happen.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 06, 2012, 02:39:18 pm
Also any kind of flags that should have been raised by someone getting four guns in four months.

sounds like "everyone can buy anything, but the government should keep track of it", which is fake freedom and as such an extremely bad idea imo.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/hmh.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 06, 2012, 02:56:56 pm
Why wouldnt the government keep track of how many guns you have and what power they have?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of your mental problems when issuing you killing utensils?
Why wouldnt the government  keep track of how many kids you have and where they are?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of where the cars you bought are?


Regulation is crucial in everything. Just like you cant have unaccounted for kids, you cant have unaccounted for guns.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 06, 2012, 03:00:55 pm
Doesn't seem much different from people having a black belt in martial arts being filed by the police (in France at least), IIRC.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 06, 2012, 03:12:44 pm
Well guns are tools and kids are living beings that are legally the responsibility of the state and government in which they're born. Of course they should be accounted for. While we're at it, the government could keep track of the number of pets we have, the number knives we have in our kitchens, and the number of times we thought about going into a movie theater and shooting up a bunch of people.

The comparison doesn't play out right, but even so, the government definitely should keep track of the guns that people buy. It makes solving homicides easier, and allows red flags to be raised if suspicious activity surrounding gun purchases arise. Kinda like a red flag that would be raised when a bank account suddenly starts receiving 10,000$ a week from a nonexistent company.

However, I would hardly consider buying 4 guns in 4 months a red flag. The government doesn't have enough numbers to handle every case in which a person buys 4 guns within 4 months. Plenty of people get more than 4 guns in less than four months, where are the mass murders linked to those people? The government would need to form a level of suspicion that is sufficient enough to warrant an investigation of an individual just because they bought 4 guns. Holmes, in my experience, would not have been one of those person who would have needed an investigation against him.

The simple fact is that psychos are unpredictable. Saying that a psycho could use a truck to collapse a building is not an excuse for a psycho using a gun to shoot up a bunch of people, it's a simple fact that acknowledges that there are unpredictable people.

There is no amount of government control that could prevent the thoughts leading to the actions that Holmes made without unconstitutionally invading the privacy of many, many people in the process.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 06, 2012, 03:22:27 pm
Why wouldnt the government keep track of how many guns you have and what power they have?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of your mental problems when issuing you killing utensils?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of how many kids you have and where they are?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of where the cars you bought are?

because it shouldn't need to in general for all of those points.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/criticalsit.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 06, 2012, 03:26:51 pm
Why wouldnt the government keep track of how many guns you have and what power they have?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of your mental problems when issuing you killing utensils?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of how many kids you have and where they are?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of where the cars you bought are?

because it shouldn't need to in general for all of those points.
I disagree.

If you have too many high powered guns in your name they should keep track of them, to see if they start showing up in crimes.

If you are being issued a grenade launcher you should be first be checked out to see if you have mental issues that make issuing you weapons a no-no.
If no one knows where your kids are or how many are born what prevents you from abusing them or selling them for organs? Who guarantees that they are safe?

If the government doesnt keep track of your cars, what guarantees that they are in conditions that are not a danger to the public?

You cant handwave responsability like that. Why do you think you get a numbered ID? its not just for taxes ( okay a big part of it is! )
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 03:27:13 pm
However, I would hardly consider buying 4 guns in 4 months a red flag. The government doesn't have enough numbers to handle every case in which a person buys 4 guns within 4 months. Plenty of people get more than 4 guns in less than four months, where are the mass murders linked to those people? The government would need to form a level of suspicion that is sufficient enough to warrant an investigation of an individual just because they bought 4 guns.
Four handguns, maybe. But what about a shotgun, an assault rifle, smoke grenades and whatever else he had ? The guy bought four assault-grade heavy weapons. How is that alone not a high enough level of suspicion ?

Quote
The simple fact is that psychos are unpredictable.
If the psychiatrists he was seeing actually noticed that he was preparing those things, doesn't that say it was actually predictable ? Maybe it isn't always so, maybe psychos aren't always followed by a psychiatrist. But even if you can't account for all the psychos, there are those you can see (and you actually do see), so what about them ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 06, 2012, 03:39:55 pm
In the case of Holmes, what could have been done though, considering current laws (I'm not talking about changing laws, on purpose) ?
- Psychiatrists may have known what he was preparing. Do they have the legal authority to go see the cops and warn them ? I supposed they have something (laws or agreement) keeping them from talking, so they had to keep it a secret.
- Let's say they could have alerted the authorities. What about it then ? The police can't take the guns Holmes acquired, since he did it legally. They can't arrest him for a crime he didn't commit (yet), this is not Minority Report.

At which point can you consider a threat serious enough to take action (before you know they're going to happen), in a case like this ? At some point, it's a bunch of "what ifs".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: hjk on August 06, 2012, 03:41:01 pm
@ Rajaa
Dead on.

However, I would hardly consider buying 4 guns in 4 months a red flag. The government doesn't have enough numbers to handle every case in which a person buys 4 guns within 4 months. Plenty of people get more than 4 guns in less than four months, where are the mass murders linked to those people? The government would need to form a level of suspicion that is sufficient enough to warrant an investigation of an individual just because they bought 4 guns.
Four handguns, maybe. But what about a shotgun, an assault rifle, smoke grenades and whatever else he had ? The guy bought four assault-grade heavy weapons. How is that alone not a high enough level of suspicion?
Anyone who says you're wrong for asking this question is silly. Assault weapons are a bit much.

Quote
The simple fact is that psychos are unpredictable.
If the psychiatrists he was seeing actually noticed that he was preparing those things, doesn't that say it was actually predictable ? Maybe it isn't always so, maybe psychos aren't always followed by a psychiatrist. But even if you can't account for all the psychos, there are those you can see (and you actually do see), so what about them ?
Many reasons, actually:
- We don't know what was said between the psychiatrist and him. We wouldn't know whether or not he could have 'given himself away.'
- You'd be infringing on his rights.
- It takes a lot to actually get a judge/enforcement force to go into someone's house yadda yadda
- Remember, assault weapons are legal in many places here... those weapons, nor the fact that he bought them, would automatically be considered a red flag/something out of the ordinary with the laws the way that they are.
- You can't just say someone will do something... really, dangerous psychopaths are simply unpredictable... there's nothing you can really do.

Why wouldnt the government keep track of how many guns you have and what power they have?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of your mental problems when issuing you killing utensils?
Why wouldnt the government  keep track of how many kids you have and where they are?
Why wouldnt the government keep track of where the cars you bought are?
Regulation is crucial in everything. Just like you cant have unaccounted for kids, you cant have unaccounted for guns.
You know how much money and time that would take? Especially in a country where everyone's scared of everyone, where lawsuits are constantly thrown around like tomorrow won't come, etc. Too many of those checks and subsequent "investigations" would amount to non-issues and would result in watsed time. The government(s) as some point just said to itself, we have to let it go because 'we can't patrol everything' (even if strict gun control was mandated).

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 06, 2012, 03:43:56 pm
If you have too many high powered guns in your name they should keep track of them, to see if they start showing up in crimes.

guns can be traceable if the police needs to do that, but that doesn't mean the government needs to know exactly who owns what weapon at what point.

Quote
If you are being issued a grenade launcher you should be first be checked out to see if you have mental issues that make issuing you weapons a no-no.

can't see a reason why anyone would be issued a grenade launcher, but in general you're right here. No tracking involved, though.

Quote
If no one knows where your kids are or how many are born what prevents you from abusing them or selling them for organs? Who guarantees that they are safe?

child abuse is against the law.

Quote
If the government doesnt keep track of your cars, what guarantees that they are in conditions that are not a danger to the public?

"keeping track" != "mandatory inspections"

Quote
You cant handwave responsability like that. Why do you think you get a numbered ID? its not just for taxes ( okay a big part of it is! )

If you are talking about a unique number which associates different things about me - I have no such thing.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/hayeater.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 03:51:44 pm
- Let's say they could have alerted the authorities. What about it then ? The police can't take the guns Holmes acquired, since he did it legally. They can't arrest him for a crime he didn't commit (yet), this is not Minority Report.
Surveillance is possible, I'm pretty sure they do that for people suspected of having links to terrorism. Even if we were to accept that selling a grenade launcher to any civilian is okay, buying four weapons like that should definitely put you on someone's watchlist. This surveillance and "catching him on the moment he's just about to commit his act of terrorism" is definitely something that exists already.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 06, 2012, 03:55:07 pm
You know how much money and time that would take? Especially in a country where everyone's scared of everyone, where lawsuits are constantly thrown around like tomorrow won't come, etc. Too many of those checks and subsequent "investigations" would amount to non-issues and would result in watsed time. The government(s) as some point just said to itself, we have to let it go because 'we can't patrol everything' (even if strict gun control was mandated).



I assumed all of those are already tracked!!! >:| Wtf, why wouldnt those things be tracked for all the reasons ive said.

Val, you mean to tell me you have no social security id or citizen id?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: hjk on August 06, 2012, 04:01:31 pm
- Let's say they could have alerted the authorities. What about it then ? The police can't take the guns Holmes acquired, since he did it legally. They can't arrest him for a crime he didn't commit (yet), this is not Minority Report.
Surveillance is possible, I'm pretty sure they do that for people suspected of having links to terrorism. Even if we were to accept that selling a grenade launcher to any civilian is okay, buying four weapons like that should definitely put you on someone's watchlist. This surveillance and "catching him on the moment he's just about to commit his act of terrorism" is definitely something that exists already.
Not necessarily. There are many people who anyone could suspect of having links to terrorist organizations who simply can't be surveyed because the resources aren't available.
It's even harder to police someone like Holmes because there are thousands if not millions of general civilians who share his story. There are just too many people to scout if you were to arbitrarily say, "survey them" and call the problem solved.

I assumed all of those are already tracked!!! >:| Wtf, why wouldnt those things be tracked for all the reasons ive said.
Val, you mean to tell me you have no social security id or citizen id?
The reason why is because there are simply too many people to be tracked in that case. In my High School, by my graduating year, teachers and students had made complaints about at least 60 kids that they thought would be "school shooters" and to everyone's surprise (not mine, but many of us) none of them actually did anything - I live in the 3rd richest county of the US, btw. People in this country are just way too paranoid.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 04:07:58 pm
Not necessarily. There are many people who anyone could suspect of having links to terrorist organizations who simply can't be surveyed because the resources aren't available.
That becomes a different matter altogether, then - resources. It doesn't mean we should just give up because we can't do it.
Quote
It's even harder to police someone like Holmes because there are thousands if not millions of general civilians who share his story.
There are millions of people who buy a shotgun, an assault rifle, and a grenade launcher, with a psychiatrist who can see they're preparing something like that ? That only sounds like this is the problem. Unless it's fixed, cases like Holmes will never have a solution, and we can't lament about it, just say "well what did you expect" until we finally decide that's enough.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: hjk on August 06, 2012, 04:17:36 pm
Not necessarily. There are many people who anyone could suspect of having links to terrorist organizations who simply can't be surveyed because the resources aren't available.
That becomes a different matter altogether, then - resources. It doesn't mean we should just give up because we can't do it.
I'd love to think so too, but over the years I've just had to come to accept that sometimes it really is impossible - or maybe not impossible, but extremely hard to control.

Quote
It's even harder to police someone like Holmes because there are thousands if not millions of general civilians who share his story.
There are millions of people who buy a shotgun, an assault rifle, and a grenade launcher, with a psychiatrist who can see they're preparing something like that ? That only sounds like this is the problem. Unless it's fixed, cases like Holmes will never have a solution, and we can't lament about it, just say "well what did you expect" until we finally decide that's enough.
About the psychiatrist being able to see that he was planning this... people say things like this all the time, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll do it. The psychiatrist might even have reported it to the cops, chances are he would have been interrogated and let go anyway.
And don't get this wrong, psychiatry is like a fad here. So many people go into those offices and say whatever. The psychiatrist really can't tell whether or not you'll do something. even if you say it, because the extremity of words is so common here (especially in psychiatrical offices) that it is barely ever taken seriously. Most times it's just regarded as "honest venting."

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 06, 2012, 04:21:59 pm
Four handguns, maybe. But what about a shotgun, an assault rifle, smoke grenades and whatever else he had ? The guy bought four assault-grade heavy weapons. How is that alone not a high enough level of suspicion ?
I don't know. Wherever he bought them probably had a bunch of people come and do the same without hearing about a mass murder from 4 months later. Your guess is as good as mine.

Quote
The simple fact is that psychos are unpredictable.
If the psychiatrists he was seeing actually noticed that he was preparing those things, doesn't that say it was actually predictable ?
If his psychiatrist thought he might be a threat to others or himself, she had the legal right and moral obligation to let other people know, and apparently she did just that. But she couldn't have predicted his specific machinations because he sent the details to her ON the day of the attack. Not 4 months earlier.

Maybe it isn't always so, maybe psychos aren't always followed by a psychiatrist. But even if you can't account for all the psychos, there are those you can see (and you actually do see), so what about them ?
Psychos who are accounted for wouldn't be allowed to buy weapons. Holmes's psychiatric treatment apparently wasn't that formal(?), so a background check was unlikely to bring that up. Unless he had special detectives who dug into his history. Also, there is a doctor patient privilege -- and rightfully so.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 04:28:30 pm
About the psychiatrist being able to see that he was planning this... people say things like this all the time, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll do it. The psychiatrist might even have reported it to the cops, chances are he would have been interrogated and let go anyway.
And don't get this wrong, psychiatry is like a fad here. So many people go into those offices and say whatever. The psychiatrist really can't tell whether or not you'll do something. even if you say it, because the extremity of words is so common here (especially in psychiatrical offices) that it is barely ever taken seriously. Most times it's just regarded as "honest venting."
I was more concerned about the whole part where someone can actually buy four weapons like those ones - AND on top of that have a psychiatrist who picks up those tendencies. The psychiatrist bit would be the last step, the last check, especially since it's supposed to be confidential. The selling of those weapons would be the first flag - I'd say it shouldn't even happen. If anyone is concerned about that, then they should speak up, make a group, etc.

Quote
Wherever he bought them probably had a bunch of people come and do the same without hearing about a mass murder from 4 months later.
The fourth one to sell him his heavy weapon sold a heavy weapon to someone who already had 3. Why would that gun seller think it was okay ? Because he didn't know Holmes had 3 like that already ? So why did he not know, then ?
Quote
Psychos who are accounted for wouldn't be allowed to buy weapons. Holmes's psychiatric treatment apparently wasn't that formal(?), so a background check was unlikely to bring that up.
Background check might not have picked up that he was a psycho, but as I was saying to len, it certainly should have picked up that he had 3 heavy weapons already. Even 2. Hell, that he already had even one assault rifle.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 06, 2012, 04:34:24 pm
I assumed all of those are already tracked!!! >:| Wtf, why wouldnt those things be tracked for all the reasons ive said.
Val, you mean to tell me you have no social security id or citizen id?
The reason why is because there are simply too many people to be tracked in that case. In my High School, by my graduating year, teachers and students had made complaints about at least 60 kids that they thought would be "school shooters" and to everyone's surprise (not mine, but many of us) none of them actually did anything - I live in the 3rd richest county of the US, btw. People in this country are just way too paranoid.
Are you talking only about guns, or also about things such as cars ? If you regulate cars, you can also regulate guns at some point, no ?

It shouldn't be too hard to put in place a system where a gun retailer would be able to check the background of the guy who wants to purchase one. And each time a weapon is bought, its ID is sent to a police file.

This sounds contradictory to me (especially for the country spending the most in military defense, one would think you'd regulate your own citizens before the rest of the world) :
Especially in a country where everyone's scared of everyone, where lawsuits are constantly thrown around like tomorrow won't come, etc.
Isn't this usually the motivation for regulation ? When people are so scared of others, isn't this when the government acts as Big Brother ? I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing. The government should NOT check on every single little thing you do and look into your private life, but controlling things such as houses (do you actually live here), cars (is it actually your car and do you have a license) and guns (do you have the right to carry those) makes sense and is needed to ensure security (and taxes ...) at some point.

Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Titiln on August 06, 2012, 04:56:52 pm
i believe discussion about the amount of guns/type of guns is kind of moot. instead of buying rifles and shotguns he could've just bought two handguns. because two handguns is all you can get with these new theoretical laws. two handguns is all you can get without a deeper background check, without a psychiatrist evaluating you for 5 hours (assuming these are master psychiatrists that guarantee this person will absolutely never, ever malfunction). then he'd be a guy in armor with two handguns surrounded by tear gas. that's still absolutely fucking dangerous. he would've just killed a couple less people. it would still have been a tragedy.

the chris benoit example brought up by len is a good one. this was someone who was considered normal among his peers. when news of his death and his family's death broke they mostly thought it was an accident or someone murdered them. benoit being the muderer never crossed their minds. they even made the show a tribute to him and his career. this is someone that murdered a woman and a child with his bare fucking hands. no guns involved whatsoever.

what i meant by culture (which was a sentence i worded poorly i definitely admit) was just everything surrounding the country. all the other factors that cause crime, gang violence, home violence and suicides. the same factors that affect crime and violence in other countries. it's not just guns.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: hjk on August 06, 2012, 04:58:03 pm
Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
Great post altogether. Yes, the answer to this is that the US is retarded. The lack of a mandate that holds private gun-dealers accountable for failing to perform background checks is beyond me. When things like this happen, I'm often perturbed by the fact that they can get off scot-free by law while facing shit for their negligence. I don't fear for my life, but I think that it would be more comforting to have a law in place that handles this issue to at least keep them in check by some minute measure.

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
Are you talking only about guns, or also about things such as cars ? If you regulate cars, you can also regulate guns at some point, no ?
It shouldn't be too hard to put in place a system where a gun retailer would be able to check the background of the guy who wants to purchase one. And each time a weapon is bought, its ID is sent to a police file.
This sounds contradictory to me (especially for the country spending the most in military defense, one would think you'd regulate your own citizens before the rest of the world) :
It's easy to have a registry. The truly hard parts would be identifying who belongs in the registry and who does not. You can name thousands of people who are reportedly disturbed, just like Holmes, but knowing whether or not they'll actually do something is a whole 'nother issue. If every single James Holmes were in a registry, then you'd have to face how exactly you'd go about investigating the sheer volume of people who would be in that registry, only to find out that the number would probably be impossible to handle.
 
Especially in a country where everyone's scared of everyone, where lawsuits are constantly thrown around like tomorrow won't come, etc.
Isn't this usually the motivation for regulation ? When people are so scared of others, isn't this when the government acts as Big Brother ? I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing. The government should NOT check on every single little thing you do and look into your private life, but controlling things such as houses (do you actually live here), cars (is it actually your car and do you have a license) and guns (do you have the right to carry those) makes sense and is needed to ensure security (and taxes ...) at some point.
It is needed, it most certainly is, but again the point is that because people are so paranoid out here, you'll fill thousands of pages with the amount of people you'll have to investigate and the time, energy, and resources needed to handle these things simply isn't there. And even getting the information to conclusively state that somone "will" do something like this would be even harder to get.
In other words you'll be dealing with "a bugillion" false alarms (where you might even be sure that a person is dangerous yet they turn out not to be) while trying to weed out the ones that really do pose a threat.

Spoiler, click to toggle visibilty
Yep. You're absolutely right man.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 05:07:59 pm
he would've just killed a couple less people. it would still have been a tragedy.
That is true, though it would have been a far smaller problem. Not less of a tragedy, but I admit that there's some point where you just can't regulate it all the way through - much like you can regulate cars and alcohol consumption but that won't stop all alcohol-induced lethal accidents with cars. Yes, at some point, you really can only say "that's life, shit happens". But it would then pass as something that really, really can't be prevented. While the usage of four weapons like those certainly can, and that's absolutely not something you can say "that's life, shit happens" to. You do have to draw a line between what's relatively acceptable (in a "shit happens" way, not that it's less of a tragedy) and what just isn't.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 06, 2012, 05:11:56 pm
i believe discussion about the amount of guns/type of guns is kind of moot. instead of buying rifles and shotguns he could've just bought two handguns. because two handguns is all you can get with these new theoretical laws. two handguns is all you can get without a deeper background check, without a psychiatrist evaluating you for 5 hours (assuming these are master psychiatrists that guarantee this person will absolutely never, ever malfunction). then he'd be a guy in armor with two handguns surrounded by tear gas. that's still absolutely fucking dangerous. he would've just killed a couple less people. it would still have been a tragedy.

Still, reducing the consequences is still good , if 9 peeple die instead of eleven, if the amount of people getting killed by guns is cut in half, that's a good thing, not a worthless thing. I don't really feel like posting seriously in this thread because a lto fo people that I know ahve been killed by guns in the past few years, so take a much as you get.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 06, 2012, 05:32:48 pm
I assumed all of those are already tracked!!! >:| Wtf, why wouldnt those things be tracked for all the reasons ive said.

um, privacy? personal freedom? this ain't 1984 :blank:

Quote
Val, you mean to tell me you have no social security id or citizen id?

I have a social security id, but that's not bound by default to anything else. Even the police would have to ask the judicative before they could do anything (with it. I certainly don't have a "citizen id".[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/lookup.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 06, 2012, 05:42:34 pm
You don't have a "national identity card", or even a passport ?
Your country doesn't know which car(s) you own, if any ? They don't know if you have a driving license ? They don't know where you live (or at least have a legal address) ? They don't know how much you earn (to know how many taxes you should pay) ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 06, 2012, 05:45:33 pm
if you honestly believe your id cards arent used to track you up , i dunno what to tell you, and no, i dont think this is a big 1984 big brother kind of thing, its just normal tracking where they have you ided .
In the same vein most ocuntries have social id, birth cedule, etc. You cant have a population where people go unnacounted for, too much potential for people being abused.

We have BI number, social id, police records and drivers ID. in case we have a gun we have gun permits.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 06, 2012, 05:47:13 pm
my id card.
(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e295/catholicathiest/mclovin.jpg)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 06, 2012, 07:59:14 pm
if you honestly believe your id cards arent used to track you up , i dunno what to tell you, and no, i dont think this is a big 1984 big brother kind of thing, its just normal tracking where they have you ided .

my social security number is used for social security stuff, my driver's license is used to check if I'm allowed to drive. the only ones who can cross-reference those are the police, and then it's a manual process and needs to be permitted by a judge.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/reg6.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 06, 2012, 08:20:58 pm
in germany, do thye ask you for your social security number when you get a job ? what about birth certificates ?

here we even have specific ids, suchs as a fiscal code, unique pupulation record (linked to your cell phone number), adult id, etc...
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 06, 2012, 08:29:51 pm
in germany, do thye ask you for your social security number when you get a job ? what about birth certificates ?

former yes, second not sure but I don't think an employee is legally obliged to show his birth certificate to an employer[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/reg2.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 06, 2012, 11:04:39 pm
thanks.

anyway, the conspiracy theories are quite funny so:

http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news617_batmanwhohow.html
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 06, 2012, 11:10:51 pm
:stare:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 06, 2012, 11:39:57 pm

If you are being issued a grenade launcher you should be first be checked out to see if you have mental issues that make issuing you weapons a no-no.


OK, lets talk about that grenade launcher.

You showed us this link

http://www.autoweapons.com/products/destructivedevices.html

Stating several times how easy it was to get a grenade launcher here, so lets pretend I'm going to treat myself to a grenade launcher and I can't live without that attractive green one thats a steal at just under 2000 dollars.

I decide to order it and...  oh whats this on the home page of that website?  NFA rules apply, so that means

Quote
Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[14]
  (thats from wiki)

ATF is Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a FEDERAL government agency.  And a lot of people have to check me out and give permission and I would have to be fingerprinted.  Oh no, I refuse to do that.  So I dont get that adorable grenade launcher.

And no, no government needs to know more about me than they already do.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 11:48:01 pm
thanks.

anyway, the conspiracy theories are quite funny so:

http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news617_batmanwhohow.html

Quote
James Holmes mugshot wasn't taken after his arrest which is standard procedure. The mugshot was taken right before he appeared in court 3 days later. His facial hair growth is the same in both photos.
It's funny because it's not.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 06, 2012, 11:51:07 pm
It's obviously fake hair that was added to his face by the gay socialist Zionist Muslims, from the order of Xenu.

wake up sheeple
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 06, 2012, 11:57:11 pm
you need to get FINGERPRINTED to get a grenade launcher?!!? OH NO that completely defeats my narrative and point !! oh wait, no it doesnt. you also have to undergo some "tests" to get a semi auto rifle, it doesnt change a thing if you are fingerprinted if you then use it to blow up a school bus.


holmes passed the test for a semi auto rifle, maybe his finger prints are somewhere!! That sure helped!!

cmon, stop acting as if everyone is retarded.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 06, 2012, 11:59:39 pm
I don't even see anything preventing you from getting five of them, either, at least not at a glance, separatedly or not. As long as they have your fingerprints and a background check, you can collect them like stamps ? I mean, if the background checks out fine, what seems to be the problem, officer ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 07, 2012, 12:00:36 am
Honestly, do you really think they're going to remove something like that for people that actually buy it and are of ACTUAL sound minds because there are bad weeds? Antique/actual sharpened SWORDS are being sold in markets legally, and I'm willing to bet those have been put to ill use, but distribution continues on them.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Jmorphman on August 07, 2012, 12:02:08 am
Antique swords can't fire explosive rounds.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 07, 2012, 12:03:01 am
- Who buys those things and are of actual sound minds, and how is that considered normal
- Who buys four of them period
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 07, 2012, 12:04:24 am
Who said they had to buy four of them? I figured we were talking about the grenade launcher, not the semi autos. And no, swords can't fire explosive rounds, they can be thrown, easily used, hidden, and they're pretty good at, you know, cutting things. Also lol even if a grenade launcher does more damage via explosives, does this mean there's a ratio of people that can and cannot be killed for it to be an "issue".
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 07, 2012, 12:05:04 am
I bought this one in red, i use it in my living room to hold flowers.

the black one is the one im saving for when the mexicans invades america and we need to kill them all.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 07, 2012, 12:06:05 am
You can't seriously be comparing a grenade launcher to a sword. What's next, comparing a tank to a kitchen knife ? Because a good kitchen knife is just as good as the sword you described. It's not like the  number of people it can kill at once is an issue.
As for buying four of them, Holmes bought a shotgun, an assault rifle etc. times four.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 修羅 on August 07, 2012, 12:09:53 am
I blame Homer for saying a pencil was as dangerous as a gun. :V
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 07, 2012, 12:17:12 am
I suppose that was a bad comparison. I'll just bluntly state my point.
Getting rid of/removing privelages to things like this generally does not bode over well because a lot of higher ups/a handful of people in a high position or with the association that distributes them ask for results, they ask for statistics, numbers, ratios. Flat out banning grenade launchers without reasons like those would probably bother a lot of said people.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 07, 2012, 12:20:46 am
Pen gun. Mightier than the Sword.

Sword gun. Mightier than the Pen Gun.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/hehe.png[/avatar]
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 07, 2012, 12:21:33 am
Lemme tell you my sword can shoot explosive rounds. It's custom made though. And no, I don't think civilians should have grenade launchers, but there's no way to just flat out remove them due to the way the distributors would be about, say, profits and such. They WOULD want statistics, and they'd grasp for every straw to continue selling said product because it makes money.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 07, 2012, 12:23:32 am
I suppose that was a bad comparison. I'll just bluntly state my point.
Getting rid of/removing privelages to things like this generally does not bode over well because a lot of higher ups/a handful of people in a high position or with the association that distributes them ask for results, they ask for statistics, numbers, ratios. Flat out banning grenade launchers without reasons like those would probably bother a lot of said people.

do you mean the people who make a living selling guns, yeah i can see them being against most gun control laws.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 07, 2012, 12:26:20 am
They're speaking strictly of the grenade launcher. While I agree it shouldn't really be sold like this, I don't think just flat out banning it/removing it would boil over well due to...stinginess and profits made. Granted I doubt the audience behind a grenade launcher is really, uh...big, but if it makes any smidgeon of profit, they'll want it to be there.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Iced on August 07, 2012, 12:29:07 am
I suppose that was a bad comparison. I'll just bluntly state my point.
Getting rid of/removing privelages to things like this generally does not bode over well because a lot of higher ups/a handful of people in a high position or with the association that distributes them ask for results, they ask for statistics, numbers, ratios. Flat out banning grenade launchers without reasons like those would probably bother a lot of said people.

The reason would be that they were assault weapons. they are done to cause assault on people.

They banned antrax( or i hope they did ).

They banned slavery ( and there were a lot of americans mad about that to this day )

Something being controlled bothering someone is not a good reason to prevent it. I bet a lot of people are bothered that they cant get coke legally. And that at least can only harm one person at a time.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 07, 2012, 12:34:08 am
damn, here we give our 10 fingers scanned + retina just like that.

why are you afraid to give your government your fingerprint? do you plan to commit some crime?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 07, 2012, 12:36:41 am
Don't misconstrue me, I ain't saying they SHOULD sell them. But I really doubt they're going to stop selling them anyways, unfortunately.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 07, 2012, 12:44:41 am
Are these gun manufacturers so powerful in the US ? I bet they are, yeah (unfortunately).

But with this kind of mentality, they could be selling any kinds of military weapons, even more dangerous than grenade launchers and semi-auto rifles, and your (not you in particular) only defense would be "but banning them would make the manufacturers unhappy !!!". What the Hell !
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 07, 2012, 12:46:06 am
Getting rid of/removing privelages to things like this generally does not bode over well because a lot of higher ups/a handful of people in a high position or with the association that distributes them ask for results, they ask for statistics, numbers, ratios. Flat out banning grenade launchers without reasons like those would probably bother a lot of said people.
I don't think civilians should have grenade launchers, but there's no way to just flat out remove them due to the way the distributors would be about, say, profits and such. They WOULD want statistics, and they'd grasp for every straw to continue selling said product because it makes money.
While I agree it shouldn't really be sold like this, I don't think just flat out banning it/removing it would boil over well due to...stinginess and profits made. Granted I doubt the audience behind a grenade launcher is really, uh...big, but if it makes any smidgeon of profit, they'll want it to be there.
I ain't saying they SHOULD sell them. But I really doubt they're going to stop selling them anyways, unfortunately.
It doesn't make it right, and as such, considering how wrong it is to just sell grenade launchers to civilians, the poor feelings of the sellers should really be completely disregarded. That is, if anyone actually wanted to make it happen.
Just because it would be difficult, doesn't mean we should give up on trying to do it. These people shouldn't have the right to stop that from happening, and you shouldn't think "they'll do everything they can to stop it". If you say "let's talk about fixing that", then when someone's hurt feelings make him scream at you, if it's enough to make you say "okay, forget I brought that up" then you really shouldn't participate in this. Help those who really want to change that, and don't tell them to stop as soon as someone stands in your way.

They would want statistics ? Fuck them. They should not have a say in this.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 07, 2012, 12:49:43 am
why are you afraid to give your government your fingerprint? do you plan to commit some crime?

I'm not afraid, it's a matter of privacy, and the fundamental idea in any modern justice system called "presumption of innocence". Which I hold in high regard, and actually demonstrate every now and then when new laws are discussed which restrict this. I do not owe my government a justification for anything I do that's not against the law.
[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/sit.png[/avatar]
@Iced: Stuff.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 07, 2012, 12:50:24 am
Well Byakko, while that is true, I highly doubt the government(not ME, the government) would agree with it due to...well, the influence of the firearm distributors.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Byakko on August 07, 2012, 12:51:38 am
Yes, while that is true, I highly doubt the government would agree with us : (.
Make it. Talk to people, see how many agree, form a group, make a website, an association, grow through the country, gain fame, go to radio shows, go on live TV. Make them. Change the country. Support your local mayor or senator who agrees.
Or join someone who is already doing all that. Make that guy grow, help him do that for you.
Bet ten years of your life to change your country.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: TTTTTsd on August 07, 2012, 01:07:14 am
Either way, disregard the entirity of that whole sword thing. I probably lost my train of thought or something there lol. Happens to all of us every now and then, just to me more often X_X. Or maybe I'm uprooting the government's next weapons project, exploding swords/swords that shoot grenades!
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 07, 2012, 01:21:34 am
why are you afraid to give your government your fingerprint? do you plan to commit some crime?

I'm not afraid, it's a matter of privacy, and the fundamental idea in any modern justice system called "presumption of innocence". Which I hold in high regard, and actually demonstrate every now and then when new laws are discussed which restrict this. I do not owe my government a justification for anything I do that's not against the law.

@Iced: Stuff.

how does your fingerprints being taken have anything to do with infraction of your privacy? or your presumption of innocence?

as citizen we have ourselves ID-ed by our government, and that includes fingerprints and lately retina scan
I think it is a normal procedure, as they register your ID
as it will help them in many cases, like when you become a victim of plane crash, or for the police to match
fingerprint patterns they find in the crime scene, and also to make the ID card harder to be faked.

they don't install camera in your house.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: AdonisTygerMFG on August 07, 2012, 01:32:39 am
What kind of human being does that kind of stuff? Wait. Please do not answer that. Only people who have thoughts of suicide,homicide,and/or genocide do that kind of stuff. But Not Me. Not Now. Not Ever.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 07, 2012, 01:34:44 am
Either way, disregard the entirity of that whole sword thing. I probably lost my train of thought or something there lol. Happens to all of us every now and then, just to me more often X_X. Or maybe I'm uprooting the government's next weapons project, exploding swords/swords that shoot grenades!

I thinkt it's both lasers and railguns, whichever works better will remain if not both.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Mog on August 07, 2012, 01:34:58 am
I'm paranoid and don't trust the government.

The last couple of pages here have been so full of misinformation and contrived misunderstandings, it's getting silly.  I guess I better get used it it, it is an election year.

:bow:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Valodim on August 07, 2012, 01:38:23 am
how does your fingerprints being taken have anything to do with infraction of your privacy? or your presumption of innocence?

It does as soon as it's mandatory.[avatar]//mugenguild.com/~valodim/twi/inthewind.png[/avatar] No problem with opt-in there.

I'm paranoid and don't trust the government.

Talking to a guy who put his identity document in the microwave to fry the RFID chip inside. I don't like to be tagged :mngry:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Flamme the Creepy Sensei on August 07, 2012, 05:57:30 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/ohio-dark-knight-rises-batman-arrest_n_1751326.html?utm_hp_ref=aurora-shooting
Okay so what is this now monkey see monkey do? Thankfully this one stopped before it got worse.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 07, 2012, 07:22:30 pm
Maybe he was carrying them to defend himself in case a crazy shooter got in during his screening session ?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 07, 2012, 07:29:40 pm
I will support you if you tell me the source of your current avatar ;)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 07, 2012, 07:51:29 pm
You, him, them. The smarts, the stupids, the psychos, the Facebook users, the fat, the skinny, the ladies, the men, the little boys, the coders, the leechers, the teenagers, the grown-ups. ::)
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cyanide on August 07, 2012, 10:29:19 pm
E: You're gonna have to screenshot it. Nobody knows which random image you're seeing.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Cybaster on August 07, 2012, 10:48:34 pm
Who's mind-fucking who ? Does E really want to agree with me ? But why would he agree, I was asking a question, so I have no point ? Is he just playing with us and doesn't care about the avatars ? Or does he care and really wants to know, but didn't know about my random stolen avatars ? Or he knew but was playing with us ? OMG, head explods. :woeh:

. . .

Huh, let's get back to topic. :ninja:
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Bastard Mami on August 07, 2012, 10:55:02 pm
noeru, nevermind she already called.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: DNZRX768 on August 07, 2012, 11:19:33 pm
You guys STILL discussing this after 10 days or so?!

I thought this conversation would die down since gun debates gets old really quickly.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: 地獄の花 on August 08, 2012, 01:30:18 am
what'll we argue then? who is the better electric pokemon?
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Flamme the Creepy Sensei on August 08, 2012, 05:26:52 am
I will support you if you tell me the source of your current avatar ;)

Deviantart.

Maybe he was carrying them to defend himself in case a crazy shooter got in during his screening session ?

True. But why have a bag full of weapons? By my opinion, if you need to protect yourself, all you need is one.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: kakkoii superhero on August 08, 2012, 07:13:21 am
^ if you want to defend yourself against your own armed forces you need so many of them, inside your anti ballistic missile self sustaining concrete bunker.

if somebody get paranoid of their own government, why don't they live somewhere else.. somewhere like Liechtenstein maybe

Quote
The Liechtenstein National Police is responsible for keeping order within the country. It consists of 87 field officers and 38 civilian staff, totaling 125 employees. All officers are equipped with small arms. The country has one of the world's lowest crime rates. Liechtenstein's prison holds few, if any, inmates, and those with sentences over two years are transferred to Austrian jurisdiction
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on August 08, 2012, 07:53:27 am
You guys STILL discussing this after 10 days or so?!

I thought this conversation would die down since gun debates gets old really quickly.

i'm sure glad you didn't get involved in the discussion: with that kind of mentality, no wonder the human race tends do devolve
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Palette Jesus on August 08, 2012, 07:56:38 am
I can't believe he's still coming into threads (after all this time) and telling people to stop talking about the topics of the threads in which he posts.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: Joulz on August 08, 2012, 08:12:42 am
I can't believe he's still coming into threads (after all this time) and telling people to stop talking about the topics of the threads in which he posts.

the way you said it made me laugh IRL
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.
Post by: CRIMZON on August 08, 2012, 08:08:20 pm
Can people stop posting in here please? I'm kinda tired of seeing this in my updated topics if you're not even talking about the shooting anymore.
Title: Re: bombing at dark knight rises.