Gun Control and the Inner City

[BrianH]

only if the suicide is carried out by a gun you moron and the articule suggests other methods were used

quote

There has been a spate recently of suicide attempts using hydrogen sulphide gas that had been produced following instructions that are easily found on the Internet. According to police reports, over 500 Japanese have killed themselves this year by inhaling hydrogen sulphide fumes.
unquote

Suicide Rate In Japan Still Climbing Despite Government Measures

Listen here ass mouth, do you have a problem with reading comprehension? We're talking about guns contributing to death. My point is that gun control won't stop gun crime much like it won't stop suicides. Hence, the large number of suicides in Japan by other methods. Make sure you understand a post before you call someone a moron; dipshit

Well that isnt how it reads

you state your for gun regulations now your twisting somewhat and say what you ment was your against gun control cus it wont stop crime

states about suicide by methods other then guns is a non sequiter anyway .

Don't blame me for your inability to pick up on implications and read context clues. Read the surrounding posts and you'll understand. The posters in the thread expressed wanting to ban firearms because of the number of deaths "caused" by them. My post about suicides is a contradiction of that. In the grand scheme of things, suicide by gun is counted in overall gun-related deaths. Because Japan has a super-high suicide rate, them not allowed to own guns proves that banning guns won't do much do stop gun-related deaths. As far as homicide in concerened, the issue of banning guns has been proven not to work in decreasing violent gun deaths. The point is, people will kill people regardless if they have a gun...

As far as my position on gun regulations...I said I am for regulations that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill while not restricting my rights (as a law-abiding citizen) to obtain one. The federal government already plays its part in conducting background checks on everyone who buys a gun from a dealer. The problem arises when one can buy a gun used from an individual. You can sell your glock to a drug dealer and no one would know the drug dealer had it except for you.

 

[idb]

I'm not comparing the Roman empire specifically to the U.S., but simply saying that large nations have fallen in history and will continue to fall. Hell, the U.S.S.R fell less than around twenty years ago. My point in all this is that many people assume that because of "the time" there's no need to defend yourself from anything. Supposedly our laws protects us and our governments are "just." We know all this to be a ferry tale.

As far as Mexico is concerned...

1. Right now the Mexican citizens are being supressed by drug cartels. Citizens are no allowed to own firearms and to have one is a sizeable punishment. Google the number of Mexican citizens killed in the last few years on the U.S. southern border...IT WOULD SHOCK YOU.

2. The American-Mexican war was fought when Texas was annexed to the U.S. The Mexican army had already been defeated when Texas fought for it's own independence. Texas was actually it's own country for a while...when they were annexed, it pissed Mexico off and they deemed to fight for territory they believed was theirs. It was hardly an oppression of the citizen population.

Yep, Texas was annexed after it had already seceded from Mexico.
I accept that was stretching an argument.
But the western states were taken by force, in fact USA troops occupied Mexico City!
I bet the locals were a bit miffed about that.
There was also a rebellion in California against the American oppressors.


This is interesting stuff.

Exactly, so we are agreeing that people can be oppressed....and the absent of arms helped them be oppressed...

What...going back to the original topic isn't right?!
The possession of arms didn't stop them being oppressed either.

 

[BrianH]

Yep, Texas was annexed after it had already seceded from Mexico.
I accept that was stretching an argument.
But the western states were taken by force, in fact USA troops occupied Mexico City!
I bet the locals were a bit miffed about that.
There was also a rebellion in California against the American oppressors.


This is interesting stuff.

Exactly, so we are agreeing that people can be oppressed....and the absent of arms helped them be oppressed...

What...going back to the original topic isn't right?!
The possession of arms didn't stop them being oppressed either.

If we really want to get techincal about it. The people of Texas (including the hispanics who lived there) were being oppressed by the Mexican government. They were being forced to convert to Catholicism among other things. Texas would not have gotten it's freedom to begin with had they not had arms. During the Texas Revolution the Texas army did not have arms factories, they simply used what they had. This is one example where a population fought oppression by a government.

 

[idb]

Exactly, so we are agreeing that people can be oppressed....and the absent of arms helped them be oppressed...

What...going back to the original topic isn't right?!
The possession of arms didn't stop them being oppressed either.

If we really want to get techincal about it. The people of Texas (including the hispanics who lived there) were being oppressed by the Mexican government. They were being forced to convert to Catholicism among other things. Texas would not have gotten it's freedom to begin with had they not had arms. During the Texas Revolution the Texas army did not have arms factories, they simply used what they had. This is one example where a population fought oppression by a government.

As I understand it Texas was originally part of Mexico but seceded.

California on the other hand was an out and out invasion by the USA.

 

[JohnA]

Listen here ass mouth, do you have a problem with reading comprehension? We're talking about guns contributing to death. My point is that gun control won't stop gun crime much like it won't stop suicides. Hence, the large number of suicides in Japan by other methods. Make sure you understand a post before you call someone a moron; dipshit

Well that isnt how it reads

you state your for gun regulations now your twisting somewhat and say what you ment was your against gun control cus it wont stop crime

states about suicide by methods other then guns is a non sequiter anyway .

Don't blame me for your inability to pick up on implications and read context clues. Read the surrounding posts and you'll understand. The posters in the thread expressed wanting to ban firearms because of the number of deaths "caused" by them. My post about suicides is a contradiction of that. In the grand scheme of things, suicide by gun is counted in overall gun-related deaths. Because Japan has a super-high suicide rate, them not allowed to own guns proves that banning guns won't do much do stop gun-related deaths. As far as homicide in concerened, the issue of banning guns has been proven not to work in decreasing violent gun deaths. The point is, people will kill people regardless if they have a gun...

As far as my position on gun regulations...I said I am for regulations that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill while not restricting my rights (as a law-abiding citizen) to obtain one. The federal government already plays its part in conducting background checks on everyone who buys a gun from a dealer. The problem arises when one can buy a gun used from an individual. You can sell your glock to a drug dealer and no one would know the drug dealer had it except for you.

as explained above i agree with you thanks for responding intelligently sorry about the confusion
lets move on .

 

[asterism]

That's right, because you are all safe and cosy in your republic with your guns and inalienable rights...you have no need of the rest of the world do you?

You can have the UN if you want it.

You need the rental income from the building.
You should find another tenant before you evict them.
After all you're broke, remember.

The UN doesn't pay rental income on their headquarters and the rental income on their annexed office space is far below market value.

Try again.

 

[idb]

You can have the UN if you want it.

You need the rental income from the building.
You should find another tenant before you evict them.
After all you're broke, remember.

The UN doesn't pay rental income on their headquarters and the rental income on their annexed office space is far below market value.

Try again.

Well, maybe that's fair because the USA doesn't pay their share of fees to the UN.

 

[High_Gravity]

You need the rental income from the building.
You should find another tenant before you evict them.
After all you're broke, remember.

The UN doesn't pay rental income on their headquarters and the rental income on their annexed office space is far below market value.

Try again.

Well, maybe that's fair because the USA doesn't pay their share of fees to the UN.

What? the US is the biggest contributor to the UN, nice try.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nobody should have to raise their hand and ask permission from the State to act in self defense.

Or to exercise their rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You need the rental income from the building.
You should find another tenant before you evict them.
After all you're broke, remember.

The UN doesn't pay rental income on their headquarters and the rental income on their annexed office space is far below market value.

Try again.

Well, maybe that's fair because the USA doesn't pay their share of fees to the UN.

As I said you can have it and everthing that goes with the U.N.

 

[BrianH]

Well that isnt how it reads

you state your for gun regulations now your twisting somewhat and say what you ment was your against gun control cus it wont stop crime

states about suicide by methods other then guns is a non sequiter anyway .

Don't blame me for your inability to pick up on implications and read context clues. Read the surrounding posts and you'll understand. The posters in the thread expressed wanting to ban firearms because of the number of deaths "caused" by them. My post about suicides is a contradiction of that. In the grand scheme of things, suicide by gun is counted in overall gun-related deaths. Because Japan has a super-high suicide rate, them not allowed to own guns proves that banning guns won't do much do stop gun-related deaths. As far as homicide in concerened, the issue of banning guns has been proven not to work in decreasing violent gun deaths. The point is, people will kill people regardless if they have a gun...

As far as my position on gun regulations...I said I am for regulations that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill while not restricting my rights (as a law-abiding citizen) to obtain one. The federal government already plays its part in conducting background checks on everyone who buys a gun from a dealer. The problem arises when one can buy a gun used from an individual. You can sell your glock to a drug dealer and no one would know the drug dealer had it except for you.

as explained above i agree with you thanks for responding intelligently sorry about the confusion
lets move on .

Fair enough...sorry for the temper...Don't like being called a moron..lol

 

[idb]

The UN doesn't pay rental income on their headquarters and the rental income on their annexed office space is far below market value.

Try again.

Well, maybe that's fair because the USA doesn't pay their share of fees to the UN.

What? the US is the biggest contributor to the UN, nice try.

Oops, I stand corrected,apparently Obama wrote a cheque out to cover the longstanding arrears early on in his presidency.
Lucky the Chinese are there to flick you a few Yuan when you need it.