Im all for Chinese laws.
Im all for Chinese laws.
You're grossly over-simplifying this. The majority of all law is property law, and no, I don't agree with North Korean law, or for that matter American law, because the majority of it deals with social structuring. What you're referring to is CRIMINAL law, and yes, I do agree with the majority of criminal laws with all the countries you listed, because they make provisions against things like MURDER, THIEVERY, DRUNK DRIVING, and, of course, POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, Let's take a step back a minute and see if you even know what you're talking about. Do you even know what China's gun laws are? Here they are. And, hey, look at that, as long as you provide provisions that you're a sport shooter, a hunter, a member of a tribe, or a farmer shooting off pests. This makes China's gun laws basically the same as Canada's, the best gun laws in the world. Look at that, another policy I agree on.Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt
As for North Korean laws, well, they're a police state, so I can't exactly agree with their criminal code, however judging by the fact that they are a police state their criminality rates must be pretty fucking low. In others words, STOP USING WORDS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND (ie criminality).
NO THEY AREN'T YOU FUCKING ASFHJKSDGFSDHFHUSDHLKFUKSDHKFHUKSHDUFHKHDSHFDHJ. PROVIDE A SOURCE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE RETARDED CLAIMS LIKE THIS.
WELL TODAY'S YOUR LUCKY DAY http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1164122AAi04qF
COURT RECORDS ARE PUBLIC YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT. Unless, as I presume, you've used the wrong fucking word again, and are wondering why criminal investigation records are not made public after a case has been closed. In which case, THEY ARE MADE PUBLIC YOU DIPSHIT.LEAVE IT TO THE GUYS IN CHARGE, who abide by restrictions, and "procedure" meanwhile in doing that the criminals can easily get away or worse, commit another crime. They might know better than the you, well by that same token, YOU MIGHT KNOW BETTER THAN THEY DO TO! The only way to fix this is if criminal prosicution matters were public record so that people with knowledge agianst or to contribute would be able to help. This would also tip off the accused that they were on to him, but they could just wait to release it till they couldn't find the person.
LEARN YOUR FACTS. Under United States law, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE GUN CLASSES WHEN OBTAINING A FIREARM.And noone who has ever had basic gun classes and isn't a grade A idiot would ever ever ever leave their gun off safety.
NopeAlmost EVER unless they are going into a situation they know they need to be firing thier gun. You really never hear of oh shit this guy accidently fired his gud and 2 people died. That's because safety exists, meaning it will never fire if the switch is on safety. Because even with all this talk of how stupid people are getting, they aren't that stupid, especially when you take a gun saftey class that is required in most states to legally own a gun, that drills that point into your head, along with never aim at anyone ect. ect.
solly wins
It's people like this that make me realize why democracy in america is such a failure
First thing I thought of
http://xkcd.com/1053/
Interesting, there is a lack of information of North Korea's gun laws and crime rates on the internet.
I SMELL A CONSPIRACY
Well everybody knows north korea's happiness level is at 110%, so obviously there are no crimes
See more:
They are so happy their greatness leaks into other countries.
They had to make famines to cut off America's power, from them.
Now to the REAL issue here, Pichubro, why do you wish to take away my right to mount a cannon on my front porch.
I didn't say that
cannons are fun toys
crime: a grave offense especially against morality
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime
this is what i am talking about laws are invented from morality and justice(atleast thats what is said in america) and the definition of a criminal is someone who commits a crime and a crime is something agianst morallity, thus it is not criminal if what you are doing goes towards your own morality
I wasn't aware people didn't know crime wan't strictly just breaking a law...
it has multiple definitions and our entire system of laws are based on the fact that it stems from moral right and wrong.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
What, we weren't talking about THE ACTUAL LAWS we were talking about if we were to change the laws to a more strict version where you aren't allowed firearms in public places.... like on the street ect.
Im not saying anything about CURRENT LAWS the discusion is about if we made it illgeal to carry even a registered legal gun around with you in public for self defense. Thats the discusion, please adress this issue....
and agian, you are quoting federal law,
I SAID IN SEVERAL STATES, i DID NOT SAY FEDERALLY. States are allowed to change the law too~! and they are allowed to make things more strict (IE: requiring gun saftey classes ect.) meaning that i was talking about state law... Maybe im wrong but i know atleast one state does it and i assumed more would aswell.
Edit for this part only: I was wrong about the classes, you are right about this, and only this. However this also proves that i was right about what i said above, that currently it isn't agianst the law to carry in most public places. Win Lose so to say.
When i said releasing CURRENT records I WAS TALKING ABOUT ON GOING INVESTIGATIONS HELPING "VIGILATEES" not to make the mistake of thinking someone did a crime when they have been ruled out by the POLICE already, WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DIPSHIT
PROVIDE A SOURCE? WHERE DO YOU THINK MOST CRIMES HAPPEN THEN?(which would involve needing a gun to protect yourself with?) THE WORK PLACE? YOUR HOME? AIRPORTS/ other public places that have extreme security? NO, those make up a fraction compared to what happens in "public"
If you think im wrong provide proof please.
or we can just agree to disagree
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
The 2nd amendment was meant for the US to have a ready militia more than anything; at this point, gun culture is too strong to get rid of in the country anyway, unless through force.
I want this
take that criminal scum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime
A law is based on a moral code agreed upon by a government. You may have your own moral code, but when somebody violates it (by... not carrying a gun around?) they're not a criminal. THAT is what you're arguing right now.Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.
You made several IDIOTIC AND UNTRUE CLAIMS to support your argument, which I tore into because I hate ignorance and it's propagation. I don't give a shit about carrying firearms around in public because I live in Canada where it isn't really a problem, but when you go around making claims like "Criminality isn't breaking laws" and "The majority of crimes occur in public places", I am going to TAKE YOU THE FUCK DOWN BECAUSE YOU'RE A POISON TO SOCIETY.
MY LAST LINK WAS TO STATE GUN LAWS SHFGJKSDHFJSDKFGHJSDK. And don't assume the majority of other states have a policy if ONE STATE has the policy. That is some of the most terrible logic I have ever heard.and agian, you are quoting federal law,
I SAID IN SEVERAL STATES, i DID NOT SAY FEDERALLY. States are allowed to change the law too~! and they are allowed to make things more strict (IE: requiring gun saftey classes ect.) meaning that i was talking about state law... Maybe im wrong but i know atleast one state does it and i assumed more would aswell.
I... what?Edit for this part only: I was wrong about the classes, you are right about this, and only this. However this also proves that i was right about what i said above, that currently it isn't agianst the law to carry in most public places. Win Lose so to say.
What? Are you really claiming it's a good idea to make ongoing police investigations public? Take a moment and think about why that would be a bad idea. Please, think.When i said releasing CURRENT records I WAS TALKING ABOUT ON GOING INVESTIGATIONS HELPING "VIGILATEES" not to make the mistake of thinking someone did a crime when they have been ruled out by the POLICE already, WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DIPSHIT
NO IT DOESN'T. Source: http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/44...ME-HAPPEN.htmlPROVIDE A SOURCE? WHERE DO YOU THINK MOST CRIMES HAPPEN THEN?(which would involve needing a gun to protect yourself with?) THE WORK PLACE? YOUR HOME? AIRPORTS/ other public places that have extreme security? NO, those make up a fraction compared to what happens in "public"
Additionally, as Kirbx argued earlier, having a gun in most violent situations such as a mugging would NOT work anyways, and would most likely cause the problem to escalate from a horrible beating to a deadly gunfight. And don't try and argue it's a good idea to keep a gun around in order to protect OTHERS. What criminal in their right mind would attempt to rob from, rape, or murder a victim when they think it's possible others might just stroll along. NOBODY.Most victims of crime were engaged in activities at home (26.3 percent), while 22 percent reported being involved in some form of leisure activity away from home when victimized.
That is NOT how argument works. If you make a claim, you need to provide proof in order to back it up. If somebody says you're wrong, it is their job to discredit your evidence, NOT your initial claim. Otherwise I could go around saying we're all going to die from the apocalypse in two days and you'd have to do what I say, because you couldn't DISPROVE it.If you think im wrong provide proof please.
or we can just agree to disagree
I know this, and? Several of your points are about the same stuff. We were talking about hypothetical situations and you started quoting me current laws.... Were discusing if THAT HAPPENED.
Your some guy to declare who is poison and who isn't. I bet you would be the same person who would shoot MLK or Ghandi, they were "poison" in their times too, so were several men who actually made a difference. Nonono, the fact im talking about stuff means im poison though. I really don't understand what you are talking about. Really though you just crossed a line from this being a friendly argument to being a judgemental personal insult. I can take it, but its still rude all the same bro. Not cool
WHAT DO YOU MEAN. I.... WHAT? I said to you. to you. NVM The part i just said, you were right and i was wrong. WTF? you also insulted me agian, after i said yep i was wrong..-_-...... -_-....
NO I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS A GOOD THING READ THE POST I SAID IT COULD HAPPEN ITS AN OPTION, THAT WOULD MAKE VIGILATISM A MORE VIABLE THING, I THEN DISCUSSED PROBLEMS WITH IT TO, WTF? YOUR NOT READING WHAT THE WHOLE THING WAS ABOUT....-_-......
and i quote from your article
One in five (20.8 percent) during leisure activities
One in five (20.2 percent) during travel
One in four (23.7 percent) at home
One in nine (10.8 percent) at work or while commuting to/from work
MEANING MORE CRIME HAPPENS IN PUBLIC... 41% atleast happen in public (travel/liesure) and 10.8 accounts for at work/commuting, meaning part of that also counts for public(the going to work part) and if those are the only big percentages, no matter what, im right. around 45~50% of crimes happen in public, now if this 30% was some other place that was included(THE AIRPORT PERHAPS) and 25~30% happen at work/home/ect.
MOST VIOLENT CRIMES HAPPEN WHEN YOU ARE NOT AT HOME/WORK/PLACES WITH HIGH SECURITY(airport). AKA Most crime happen in "public" Streets ect. -_- what.....
I don't get how you call my claims igorant and untrue.... When you just prooved one, one was on conjecture, and another was wrong. I mean, god your geting offended over this, when you are not acrtually following WHAT I SAID TO BEGIN WITH.-_-
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
To further tear into your argument about your "definitions" of crime, let me give you a little lesson on semantics:
You and kirbx were both arguing about law, and you talked about crime. Crime, in this context, would obviously fall under its first definition you linked, that it is a violation of a set of laws. However, you suddenly switched definitions so that it is understood to mean a violation of MORAL CODE. That makes NO SENSE. Here's an analogy: That's like if somebody said they weigh as much as 150 pounds, then you thought "Hmm, pounds are a system of measurement, but they are also a form of British currency, and he doesn't weigh as much as 150 of those" and then said "YOU'RE WRONG YOU DON'T WEIGH AS MUCH AS 150 POUNDS!!"
All these caps
WHAT Y'ALL YELLING FER
okay ima just sit back and explain to you the entire convo from where it matters. We talked about the restriction of guns adressed to god and kirby disagreed with my oppinion. we then were arguing about police ect. that went into vigilatism and that went into carrying guns in public, which kirby thinks shouldn't be okay, then i argued with kirby about if they were to do what she thinks,(make guns illegal to carry in most public places) which isn't the law now. We got to the point where i think we just agreed to disagree, and i was also talking about vigilatism and ways to improve it somewhere in there. In that i said that hey maybe we can actually instead of saying vigilatism is a bad thing, maybe start making to to where we can have it and make it viable. 1 way to do this would be sharing on going investigations with the public and having them submiting any information they have about the case to the cops. It would cut down on time it takes to solve cases and add more information that might help solve a case that otherwise would have gone dead. It would also help vigilantis to not make mistakes like thinking someone commited a crime when the police already discovered that in fact he didn't commit the crime, it was all a misunderstanding, and then going and killing or harming the innocent guy because he doesn't know what the cops know. It would also hurt by making the criminal aware that the cops were on to them, however you could just have a delay on when you release on going investigations to the public so that you only release it when the trail for your current man goes cold.
That was the convo..... I'ma admit i made some conjecture, but i had no idea anyone was such a hard on about conjecture being terrible. Many good things happen from people just talking about stuff even if there is no factual proof from anywhere. I thought this was just a discussion place for ideas and stuff, didn't know i was going to offend you by wrongly extrapolating, and maybe instead of saying HEY YOUR WRONG, you could say, hey THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA.
REQUIRE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LEGALLY HOLD A GUN TO GO THROUGH A GUN SAFTEY CLASS FIRST. INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING THE IDEA ISN'T TRUE. because ITS A FUCKING GOOD IDEA.
"As for me, all i know is that i know nothing"
NO THEY WEREN'T. You were making CLAIMS. Go back and read your posts.
K BROYour some guy to declare who is poison and who isn't. I bet you would be the same person who would shoot MLK or Ghandi, they were "poison" in their times too, so were several men who actually made a difference. Nonono, the fact im talking about stuff means im poison though. I really don't understand what you are talking about. Really though you just crossed a line from this being a friendly argument to being a judgemental personal insult. I can take it, but its still rude all the same bro. Not cool
What you said had nothing to do with me. I never claimed states disallowed guns being carried around in public. So, no, you do not "win".WHAT DO YOU MEAN. I.... WHAT? I said to you. to you. NVM The part i just said, you were right and i was wrong. WTF? you also insulted me agian, after i said yep i was wrong..-_-...... -_-....
I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE YOU DON'T TYPE IN PROPER ENGLISH. Also, making vigilantism is NOT a good idea, and you never acknowledged my point about that.NO I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS A GOOD THING READ THE POST I SAID IT COULD HAPPEN ITS AN OPTION, THAT WOULD MAKE VIGILATISM A MORE VIABLE THING, I THEN DISCUSSED PROBLEMS WITH IT TO, WTF? YOUR NOT READING WHAT THE WHOLE THING WAS ABOUT....-_-......
Wh-what... You just said 45-50% of violent crimes happen in public. That is NOT a majority. Maybe you did prove it was a majority somewhere else in that ramble, but to be honest I could not understand it. Also, once again, they said the second most violent crimes occur during times of leisure. That does not just mean "the streets".and i quote from your article
One in five (20.8 percent) during leisure activities
One in five (20.2 percent) during travel
One in four (23.7 percent) at home
One in nine (10.8 percent) at work or while commuting to/from work
MEANING MORE CRIME HAPPENS IN PUBLIC... 41% atleast happen in public (travel/liesure) and 10.8 accounts for at work/commuting, meaning part of that also counts for public(the going to work part) and if those are the only big percentages, no matter what, im right. around 45~50% of crimes happen in public, now if this 30% was some other place that was included(THE AIRPORT PERHAPS) and 25~30% happen at work/home/ect.
MOST VIOLENT CRIMES HAPPEN WHEN YOU ARE NOT AT HOME/WORK/PLACES WITH HIGH SECURITY(airport). AKA Most crime happen in "public" Streets ect. -_- what.....
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BE MORE SPECIFICI don't get how you call my claims igorant and untrue.... When you just prooved one, one was on conjecture, and another was wrong. I mean, god your geting offended over this, when you are not acrtually following WHAT I SAID TO BEGIN WITH.-_-
That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Do you... read what you write? How are you going to university?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote