Is it really hard to fathom why many people despise the US?

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Oct 2015, 03:02

clv101 wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
clv101 wrote:Couldn't make it up! Seems the US is going to require consumers who buy drones to register on a national database. But not guns...

http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/drones-re ... portation/
The guns are not causing near misses with airliners.
Glad that you can see the funny side (assuming thats a joke!). I'm sure you'd support a similar gun register.

It is comical how the US is putting tighter legislation on drones that don't kill thousands of Americas each year than guns that do.

Sorry but that is not a joke. The rise of drones is a fast changing technology and the government is trying to get ahead of it before someone accidentally or deliberately manages to kill a lot of people with one.
And no I do not support a similar gun register as one would not remove any guns from criminals and would only restrict the rights of honest citizens.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 20 Oct 2015, 05:10

biffvernon wrote:Meanwhile at the Bonn climate conference today it looks like 134 countries have not been liking the American co-chair.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 902_1.html

These fora were all set up to benefit the US or its corporations weren't they. The world Bank, the IMF, Brettonwoods. TPP, TTIP: they're all for the benefit of US corporations because they're staffed by US corporate staffers.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 20 Oct 2015, 05:14

vtsnowedin wrote: And no I do not support a similar gun register as one would not remove any guns from criminals and would only restrict the rights of honest citizens.

In the UK the criminals do largely have the guns that they want, or at least the ones that they can afford which are probably not quite the ones that they want!

Most honest citizens can get a rifle or shot gun or two but it is more difficult for the nutters to get hold of one.

Post by **clv101** » 20 Oct 2015, 10:36

vtsnowedin wrote:
clv101 wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: The guns are not causing near misses with airliners.
Glad that you can see the funny side (assuming thats a joke!). I'm sure you'd support a similar gun register.

It is comical how the US is putting tighter legislation on drones that don't kill thousands of Americas each year than guns that do.
Sorry but that is not a joke. The rise of drones is a fast changing technology and the government is trying to get ahead of it before someone accidentally or deliberately manages to kill a lot of people with one.
And no I do not support a similar gun register as one would not remove any guns from criminals and would only restrict the rights of honest citizens.

I'm not following you.

Guns already kill thousands, so why act on something with potential to accidentally or deliberately kill thousands and not something that demonstrably does accidentally and deliberately kill thousands?

Why would a gun register restrict the rights of honest citizens? You have a register of car ownership, soon you'll have a register of drone ownership. Why would a similar register of gun ownership be a problem.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 20 Oct 2015, 10:54

VT, logically, you are required to either:

object to registering anything, including cars and drones, as well as guns

or

have no more objection to the registration of gun ownership than the registration of car and drone ownership.

You can't logically have it both ways

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 20 Oct 2015, 16:06

Cop shoots someone he pulled over, but not before giving him a good tasering first:-

http://www.businessinsider.com/cop-shoo ... ts-2015-10

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Oct 2015, 20:56

Little John wrote:VT, logically, you are required to either:

object to registering anything, including cars and drones, as well as guns

or

have no more objection to the registration of gun ownership than the registration of car and drone ownership.

You can't logically have it both ways

You fail logic class.
The registration of cars is a tax to raise money to build and maintain the roads.
The registration of guns is just a first step in confiscating them and serves no useful purpose for the gun owner.
Drones are a moving vehicle that share airspace with others. There must be rules to avoid collisions.
So you see they are different things and being for one does not lead to being for the other.
Back to the All S are P diagrams for you.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 20 Oct 2015, 21:22

vtsnowedin wrote:
Little John wrote:VT, logically, you are required to either:

object to registering anything, including cars and drones, as well as guns

or

have no more objection to the registration of gun ownership than the registration of car and drone ownership.

You can't logically have it both ways
You fail logic class.
The registration of cars is a tax to raise money to build and maintain the roads.
The registration of guns is just a first step in confiscating them and serves no useful purpose for the gun owner.
Drones are a moving vehicle that share airspace with others. There must be rules to avoid collisions.
So you see they are different things and being for one does not lead to being for the other.
Back to the All S are P diagrams for you.

So, to paraphrase, things that people may own and which may be the primary cause of accidental death, must be registered. But, other things that people may own which, as well as being a primary cause of accidental death, may also be the cause of intentional death, must not be registered.

Not only does your argument fail the logic test, it also fails the bullshit test as well.

Do you know what, I wouldn't mind so much if you were just honest about it and came out with the truth that, although there are a horrendous number of people who die each and every day from such lax, unregulated ownership of guns in your country, your personal desire to have the unfettered and unregulated right to own one yourself means you don't actually give a shit about those deaths. Because, let's face it, that's the top and bottom of it isn't it? But, no, instead you exhibit a pathetic moral cowardice by hiding behind mealy mouthed half-baked arguments (as well as the barrel of your guns) such as the one just given instead of just telling it how it actually is. What is it with you Yanks, have you all got small-dick syndrome or something?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 20 Oct 2015, 21:35

I can't see any logic in VT's argument either but I don't think I, along with many other people, will risk going to the US any time in the near future. I think that I am safer risking the wrath of Islamists in Europe than the wrath of the people who should be protecting others in the US.

I seem to remember from the film Easy Rider in the 70s that if you were different in any way in the US that you might be a target for unprovoked lethal violence even then. Not a lot has changed it would seem.

Post by **clv101** » 20 Oct 2015, 21:47

Is there anything, vtsnowedin, you would change about US gun legislation? Or do you think it's perfect right now?

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 21 Oct 2015, 00:44

kenneal - lagger wrote: I think that I am safer risking the wrath of Islamists in Europe than the wrath of the people who should be protecting others in the US.

I lost you there Ken. Just which people are you talking about and why are you afraid of them?

I seem to remember from the film Easy Rider in the 70s that if you were different in any way in the US that you might be a target for unprovoked lethal violence even then. Not a lot has changed it would seem.

For one you are referring to a film which may or may not have a grasp on the realities of the time and second if you were different in the UK in those same times would you have been safe?[/quote]

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 21 Oct 2015, 01:07

clv101 wrote:Is there anything, vtsnowedin, you would change about US gun legislation? Or do you think it's perfect right now?

That is a difficult question as it is not uniform across the country.
They don't say it, but gun restrictions in the inner cities are meant to keep the poor and minorities from having guns and the whites are quite happy to have full gun control in the inner cities while they and their body guards live under different rules out in the Mc Mansions. They don't want the riffraff to have any legal guns.
Of course the powers that be in the UK have decided that all you non titled riffraff should not own a gun.
As to what I would change if given the dictatorship? I would make the right to own ,carry, open or concealed, a gun of any type other then a fully automatic machine gun, and use it lawfully and in self defense, universal across all state and jurisdictional lines. One set of rules for everyone that everyone knows.
I would also like a database out there that a seller could check into to see if a purchaser was a restricted felon etc. that didn't involve going to a gun shop and paying a fee.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Oct 2015, 09:00

vtsnowedin wrote: Of course the powers that be in the UK have decided that all you non titled riffraff should not own a gun.

That's not how it works here. The lowliest rural peasant with a pigeon or rabbit problem can easily obtain a licence but the ban on handguns came about after public outcry following our one mass shooting at a school. It was a rather democratic thing.

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 21 Oct 2015, 10:41

Interesting story:-

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/us/fo ... .html?_r=1

Offer a pint of blood instead of going to jail - not sure what to make of this idea.....

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 21 Oct 2015, 11:23

It was the US policy of paying blood doners that lead to a lot of British people catching Hep C and even Aids when unscreened blood was bought by the NHS and given to patients for Haemophilia and other conditions.