Check this anti gun bullshit out.

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_dcNpZFhr4

[AK47]

y'all mother fuckers still arguing???? sheeeeeettt

[Eveas]

 

 

IS that what you think should be required or what is required? That isnt the case here and i have never heard of it. Not sure i agree with it. You shouldnt have to be doused with radiation to get a gun. But there is other ways to detect crazies.

MRI is magnets, not radiation.

[Guest]

Soylent Green is people, man. People!

[Guest]

 

The belief that colour, i.e. race, is the determinant of the criminal trait. That being not-white is the primary determinant of the inability to get along. That with an overwhelming majority of white race population there would be little crime.

 

Fucking racist.

 

I'm willing to give Brainsmasher the benefit of the doubt and assume he simply meant that having racial diversity causes societal problems, not that he was blaming black people for being inherently bad. However, his argument is still flawed. The UK is incredibly diverse now. The Indian population is enormous. Curry has basically become an unofficial English dish now hehe.

 

He also still hasn't responded to my assertion that equal access to education would destroy ghettos, nor has he responded to my assertion that without guns to commit crimes with, urban youth would simply end up as welfare bums sucking a little money out of taxpayers instead of becoming incarcerated inmates sucking lots of money out of taxpayers.

[Guest]

Belgium's majority ethnic group makes up 58% of the population (Flems)

Only 58%? We're a dying breed! The US is way more tolerant of different races than Europe. In Antwerp less than 50% of the population are the indigenous white folk, yet 30% of the votes go to the extreme right. These are guys who attend Nazi funerals and such. So they are no joke! And Flemish people generally hate the Wallons too. We're the record holders for going longest without a government because the Wallons and Flemish couldn't agree on forming a government. Actually we don't agree on anything. The Flemish people wouldn't like anything more than to seperate from the Wallons, while the Wallons are desperate to keep Belgium whole.

[FrankyFin]

-

[Guest]

... "white" is an ethnic group now? So there's no difference between Flems, Celts, Swedes, Sicilians, Basque, Moscowites, Croats and Slovaks?

[Guest]

I'm willing to give Brainsmasher the benefit of the doubt and assume he simply meant that having racial diversity causes societal problems, not that he was blaming black people for being inherently bad. However, his argument is still flawed. The UK is incredibly diverse now. The Indian population is enormous. Curry has basically become an unofficial English dish now hehe.

 

He also still hasn't responded to my assertion that equal access to education would destroy ghettos, nor has he responded to my assertion that without guns to commit crimes with, urban youth would simply end up as welfare bums sucking a little money out of taxpayers instead of becoming incarcerated inmates sucking lots of money out of taxpayers.

 

 

IM trying to leave this thread alone because it isnt accomplishing anything. But i will respond to you here. You are correct in what i meant. I thought it was clear. Diversity comes with its own set of problems. Not that being all one race(any race) means you will be a utopia. There is a lot of other problems caused by many other things. My comment of if the US was 92% white was not meant to say Blacks are the problem. But that was to say if we had the same diversity level as the UK we would have lower crime levels too. Their problem exists but it is on a much smaller scale. I wasnt blaming any one race. But all the races for not getting along.

 

I dont believe equal education would destroy ghettos. It doesnt do anything without a stable economy and jobs. Someone has to be the bottom of the food chain. There are only so many jobs. Those who finish last in the rat race will be the ones without a job. You can make everyone smarter but the bottom is still the bottom. Someo0ne gets left without a job and become desperate Education is important because even with Jobs stupid people would make poor choices.We also cant forget that higher intellegence doesnt always equate to good decision making. I know some very smart people who are well educated who are just Fuck ups.

 

I disagree about the guns too. No guns would onyl effect gun crime. Not all crime. So these people who you dont want to arrest would suck welfare dry as they commit a higher rate of crime on the now defenseless law abiding citizens.

[Guest]

There's no such thing as separate human races btw. Happy to help.

[AK47]

just to let everyone know the first human was in Africa........so "white people" are colorless Africans js

[Guest]

 

I dont believe equal education would destroy ghettos. It doesnt do anything without a stable economy and jobs. Someone has to be the bottom of the food chain. There are only so many jobs. Those who finish last in the rat race will be the ones without a job.

 

The reason that equal education destroys ghettos is because it is a lot easier to improve your lot in life. Ghettos become ghettos because the people living there think they are stuck there forever. It is the hopelessness that forces kids to turn to crime. With equal access to education, you can grow up in a poor neighborhood and become rich, so the hopelessness isn't there that turns a poor neighborhood into a ghetto. It doesn't matter if you believe it will happen or not. Canada is a living example of it being true.

 

 

I disagree about the guns too. No guns would onyl effect gun crime. Not all crime. So these people who you dont want to arrest would suck welfare dry as they commit a higher rate of crime on the now defenseless law abiding citizens.

 

Once again, not true. In Canada, poor youth generally do not commit crimes against "defenseless law abiding citizens". You get the occasional troublemakers who will steal stuff if you forget to lock your car or something, but there are no neighborhoods where you don't feel safe at night. Not having guns means robbery almost never happens. What is a Canadian kid going to do? Hold up a convenience store with a jack knife?

 

Is welfare abused? Yes. However, welfare costs the taxpayers about $15,000 a year. Incarcerating a criminal costs several hundred thousand dollars per year. Having 20 guys on welfare is going to be cheaper than having one in jail, so taking the guns away turns society's losers into welfare bums instead of armed robbers.

[Eveas]

The fatality rate was 5.4 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels in the same year. This figure represents a slight decrease from the previous year's rate of 5.8 deaths per 100,000 registered vessels.

 

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6601895

And the 5.1 is of all Americans whether they own a gun or not when only 35% do. So that is a misleading comparison.

[Eveas]

 

 

It has nothing to do with right or wrong. Its what you want as a society. I am perfectly fine with all the peoplein prison. I prefer the system we have in that regards. You know how many friends i have who have been to jail? How many family? Neighbors? Or people i even know? Zero!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok so what happens to us non criminal people? We are supposed to be a punching bag for the next 50 years while you conduct this experiment? Let the criminals run a muck hopig they age out. Because they are impossible to educate at that point. When you say give them more of a chance. YOu mean desriminate against everyone else by not giving them the same "chance"? What makes you think you can ever fix or bring the education problem up to a respectable level in the ghetto? Even if you could which is doubtful. It means fuck all if you cant fix the employment problem in the country(world for that matter) not to mention the Ghetto. Especially in the Black community. For the most part it isnt even a matter of availible jobs. Many just refuse to work period. UnEm Rate was twice as high as whites. Of course you are in a country where 90+% is the same race. You dont have the same social issues we have on the level we have them. But it is still entertaining to see something think they are smarter than everyone in our country who is dealing with the problems and think its such an easy fix. Oh yeah, stop arresting people. Send the police home we dont need them. Lets just implement Martial Law.

 

If America was 92-93% white we could do stuff like that. We wouldnt have much crime. But we have large groups of people who cant get along.

From now on I am treating you like humors. Just another racist troll not worth wasting any more time on.

[Guest]

And the 5.1 is of all Americans whether they own a gun or not when only 35% do. So that is a misleading comparison.

 

With the big debate over registering guns you actually believe only 35% own guns lol. That is only the percent they know about.

 

Btw I can careless if you think I'm a racist because you can't understand my point I was making with I clearified in my last post.

[Eveas]

OK, humours 2.0, whatever you say. I find most your extremism hilarious, but you very clearly went racial. That is a step too far and gives some real insight into why you are the stereotype others around the world see when looking at Americans.

[Guest]

OK, humours 2.0, whatever you say. I find most your extremism hilarious, but you very clearly went racial. That is a step too far and gives some real insight into why you are the stereotype others around the world see when looking at Americans.

 

Cut him some slack on the racial stuff. I think he just worded it poorly. I disagree with his gun stance but I don't think he is a racist.

 

With the big debate over registering guns you actually believe only 35% own guns lol. That is only the percent they know about.

 

Btw I can careless if you think I'm a racist because you can't understand my point I was making with I clearified in my last post.

 

35%, 50%, 75%, it doesn't make much of a difference. They are all ridiculously high percentages of gun ownership. That number wouldn't be 5.1 if the gun ownership rate was 1%.

 

The whole debate is stupid anyway. Boaters knowingly put themselves at risk. People who are against the dangers of boating simply stay off boats and avoid the risk. Not so with guns. It doesn't matter how much I oppose guns, I can still be killed by one.

[Guest]

Interesting about Autstralias gun Buy back program. It cost 500 million to get 660,000 guns. At that rate it would cost over $200 Billion to get the 300 million guns.

[Eveas]

US buyback programs have been hugely successful and make both sides happier. Typically, we only pay $100-$200 per gun here.

[Guest]

US buyback programs have been hugely successful and make both sides happier. Typically, we only pay $100-$200 per gun here.

 

I agree. But i bet most of those guns were $50 cheap or broken guns. I doubt they ever left a person gunless or really accomplished anything. You curtainly wouldnt take a gun with a $400 value you can sell at a gun store or pawn shop to sell at this program for 200. So i believe currently it is a useless system. I read where an anonamous person domated money towards one of these. I believe that would be fine. If it took 1 gun from a person who shouldnt have it or didnt want it laying around. But i wouldnt want tax payers money going to a system this inefficient. Maybe if an accurate amount was paid rather than a fixed amount. Otherwise the tax payers would be throwing money away. I got 2 guns, a 22 and a 25 that are maybe worth $25. I would sell both for 100 or two. The money could be put to better use imo. Also defeats the purpose if the person can take the money and go buy a better and more powerful gun. LMAO!

[Eveas]

Actually the ones I've seen filled storage rooms with guns worth way more than $200. Some in the $1000 range. If I weren't on my phone I'd post images of some successful buybacks. It is still easy to google.

[Guest]

Actually the ones I've seen filled storage rooms with guns worth way more than $200. Some in the $1000 range. If I weren't on my phone I'd post images of some successful buybacks. It is still easy to google.

 

 

I believe you. There are a lot of stupid people out there who would sell their car for gas money. But i doubt that is typical. Guns for the most part dont decline in value and there is always someone who will buy them.

[Guest]

Given your inability to grasp basic mathematics, such as comparable units of measurement and the like I doubt you'll readily understand the concept of price variance based on supply, demand, taxes, differing currencies, etc, it doesn't surprise me that you haven't though past the more superficial parts of a buy back, but I'll only address that part for now:

 

In the USA I could buy a Remington 870 pump action for under $500, in Australia it will cost you just under $1300. Obviously if you're doing just a simple 'per gun' comparison in buy-back costs (not taking into account fixed and variable costs, economy of scale and so forth) then you've just turned your number of $200b into $77b straight up.

 

Your argument about 'lol you think this is all the gun owners?' is weak as usual, because you're comparing the number to registered aquatic vessels. Guess what, there are unregistered boats out there too!

 

NexusX - Just because he doesn't own a member of a minority doesn't make him less of a racist. He may not even be malicious towards members of other races but any kind of superiority of assignment of character traits, etc, based on race the racist does make. Ignorance is usually a key indicator of likelihood. Racial diversity does not cause societal problems, intolerance and poor education cause societal problems.

[Guest]

Given your inability to grasp basic mathematics, such as comparable units of measurement and the like I doubt you'll readily understand the concept of price variance based on supply, demand, taxes, differing currencies, etc, it doesn't surprise me that you haven't though past the more superficial parts of a buy back, but I'll only address that part for now:

 

In the USA I could buy a Remington 870 pump action for under $500, in Australia it will cost you just under $1300. Obviously if you're doing just a simple 'per gun' comparison in buy-back costs (not taking into account fixed and variable costs, economy of scale and so forth) then you've just turned your number of $200b into $77b straight up.

 

Your argument about 'lol you think this is all the gun owners?' is weak as usual, because you're comparing the number to registered aquatic vessels. Guess what, there are unregistered boats out there too!

 

NexusX - Just because he doesn't own a member of a minority doesn't make him less of a racist. He may not even be malicious towards members of other races but any kind of superiority of assignment of character traits, etc, based on race the racist does make. Ignorance is usually a key indicator of likelihood. Racial diversity does not cause societal problems, intolerance and poor education cause societal problems.

 

No shit sherlock. Intolerance will is always present in todays society and it is in pretty much everyone to a degree regardless if you claim other wise. As long as it is present there will be problem when there is diversity. Since the UK has less Diversity then there is less acts of intolerance.

 

 

Also you are being misleading as usual with your numbers. No one gives a shit what you Remington 870 would cost in Australia. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. we are talking about Aus buy back program that was inacted in 1996 and used to buy back guns bought before that period. Which means the price im sure was MUCH lower since Prides since the Ban should have rose dramatically. But they are not buying back guns at post Ban prices. Even at an average gun price of $500 which is pretty conservative since just about any hand gun will cost more than that. 300 million guns at that price would be $150 Billion. Then you have the cost to run the program which includes expenses like collecting the guns, destroying the guns, disposal of the waste. So we are looking at at least 200 Billion. To put that into perspective. The cost of every natural disaster in the world in 2012 was $200 Billion.

 

Global natural disasters in 2012 combined to cause economic losses of $200 billion, which is just above the 10- year average of $187 billion. There were 295 separate events, compared to an average of 257. - USA Today

[Guest]

No shit sherlock. Intolerance will is always present in todays society and it is in pretty much everyone to a degree regardless if you claim other wise. As long as it is present there will be problem when there is diversity. Since the UK has less Diversity then there is less acts of intolerance.

 

I know I've said it before, but you really are the stupidest fucking person.

 

1. I am the one who brought up intolerance so why would I be the one who claims otherwise?

2. UK has plenty of diversity and always has had. Whether it be clashes between classes (Marx wrote Capital based on his experiences in Industrial era England), religion (Church of England anyone?), ethnic groups (Current 'issues' with Indians, Africans, and now 'Gypsies') or even nationalist movements (from English domestic groups to Welsh and Northern Ireland paramilitaries), there has been plenty of diversity and obviously plenty of trouble which goes with that. Race is not THE reason, intolerance of race and cultural differences do add to the trouble though.

 

 

Also you are being misleading as usual with your numbers. No one gives a shit what you Remington 870 would cost in Australia. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. we are talking about Aus buy back program that was inacted in 1996 and used to buy back guns bought before that period. Which means the price im sure was MUCH lower since Prides since the Ban should have rose dramatically. But they are not buying back guns at post Ban prices. Even at an average gun price of $500 which is pretty conservative since just about any hand gun will cost more than that. 300 million guns at that price would be $150 Billion. Then you have the cost to run the program which includes expenses like collecting the guns, destroying the guns, disposal of the waste. So we are looking at at least 200 Billion. To put that into perspective. The cost of every natural disaster in the world in 2012 was $200 Billion.

 

You're just too pigshit stupid to be able to comprehend numbers, as usual. Your cost of the buyback was based on Australia's cost of buyback, therefore the cost of firearms in Australia is very fucking relevant. Seriously, how do you look yourself in the mirror each day... prices of guns, apart from inflation, have barely changed. The radical extra costs are those of licensing, gun club membership, flagging vehicles, safes for securing the firearms in home and car, etc, etc. This was financed through a one-off 0.2% medicare levy increase.

 

You don't have the same medical insurance system as us, so... $200b, every natural disaster in the world eh? Why not take it out of the $707.5b (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist03z2.xls) allocated to the Department of Defense for 2012?

 

To put that into perspective. That's 3.5 times more money spent on the ability to destroy shit than Mother Nature can provide world wide on her own. As mentioned however, your $200b is a number plucked from nowhere.