3,942 Forum Posts by "D2Kvirus"
At 6/21/07 04:04 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: By the way, if anyone wants to make any money this summer, bulk buy Manhunt 2 and sell copies to British people.
Just be sure I get 10% for the tip.
OK, I'll try this again:
If any Mainland Europeans want to make some money this summer, bulk buy Manhunt 2 and sell it to British and American gamers.
Just make sure I get 15%, a copy of the game and Jack Thompson's severed arms for the tip...
At 6/20/07 12:58 PM, emmytee wrote: The BBC has not taken a pro-Hamas line at all. I was watching it earlier and it seems more on fatah's side than anyone elses
Does this mean they've switched sides? Bloody hell, I thought it was just Murdoch that would do a 180 on his allegences when the tide was turning...
On the broadcast I was watching on Friday/Saturday, they were presenting Fatah as some violent mob, while Hamas wer epresented as the more rational of the two. That they've done a 180 in half a week is worrying.
By the way, if anyone wants to make any money this summer, bulk buy Manhunt 2 and sell copies to British people.
Just be sure I get 10% for the tip.
At 6/21/07 06:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
It took Cho more than 2 months to buy the three guns he got because of Virginia's one gun a month laws. Saying that he ran out and bought the guns and did it on a whim is blantantly false. You have no desire to find the truth of the matter and it's shameful. Cho planned this out WELL in advance as everyone who has looked at any article about the massacre knows.
The fact that McVeigh made a fertiliser bomb proves he wasn't acting on some sudden bout of rage, but put some thinking into what he would need to use to cause maximum devastation in as short a time as possible, which he did so. Cho et al, however, could quickly go out on a killing spree because they knew they could get the tools to do so ASAP.
Read this again: "Cho et al, however, could quickly go out on a killing spree because they knew they could get the tools to do so ASAP."
Note this implies the others, who I have named, could do so and did do so. Cho is a one-off, in other words. Hence the word "they" is in there. Yes, I read an article - how do you think I could name the weapons used (or am I psychic in my guesswork?). Also, he didn't buy all his weapons in Virginia: the Walther was from Wisconsin, the Glock in Virginia, and the magazines in Idaho (God bless eBay, eh?).
However, Cho still didn't kill as many people as McVeigh or the Happyland Killers...neither of which used guns (manure bomb and fire respectfully).
Sorry, two months on is that the best you can come up with: "Look on the bright side, it could've been worse - McVeigh killed more, after all"?
Here's a hint, free of charge: don't term anyone else "shameful" if that's the shit you come up with.
At 6/21/07 12:54 AM, JakeHero wrote:
Was it you or the other guy who posts the same thing across threads, complete with the link to the Wikipedia page on it?Could you be more specific with the wikipedia article? I do have a telepathic link to your brain stem and would know exactly what you mean when you say "same thing" and "wikipedia page" because there's only one page on wikipedia.
So, you've forgotten you posted the link to the Wikipedia article on appealing to emotion, then?
Here we go, your argument posted by WolvenBear in the manner of an idiot that happens to be appealing to emotion while using the lowest common denomenator at the same time.Okay, so imposing a ban on guns wouldn't disarm law-abiding citizens? By the way, what's the same argument WolvenBear and I use? I mean, I should totally know exactly what you mean off the bat, even if you weren't specific and just vague.
"Gun control disarms law abiding citizens"
"YOU HAVE THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FUCKBAG"
Same argument. Sorry if you find this somewhat vague and non-specific, but I guess that's your problem for not having the intellect to think laterally.
By the way, Wolfy, your climbdown by saying it was mockery sounded forced when you were shot down before, so trying it again helps you...how?
Did I say I was quoting you? No? How does it feel to make a redundant excuse for a point?I misread your post. So sue me.
No, I'll just point out you can't read, so your credibility goes downhill. Sorry.
Great way to miss the point!
I say : "if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands."You say...some unrelated stuff about ghetto kids.I was replying to your part about "pussyish."
And I repeat, using a gun is cowardly - a way to desensitise yourself from the fact you're killing somebody which you generally don't get when stabbing etc. It's the easy way to do what should be a hard job.
In this country, your average burglar can't get a handgun because they're banned,They sure can't! http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wil son20apr20,0,4514008.story?coll=la-opinion-ce nter Criminals are really fucked with these gun regulations! I like how you cleverely word it "average burglar" so you won't have to answer for the professional ones and the other violent criminals that do have guns and go unchecked.
And your professional burglar will want to add murder to their sentence, which is 25 years on top of the 10 they'll get...why? Don't be so fucking stupid.
so to get them out of your house you cliterally switch the lights on and they bail. In the US, they panic and open fire.You do realize how ridiculous this sounds? All of a sudden, criminals are scared of lights in places? I'm pretty sure there are criminals that are willing to maim someone to get what they want in the house.
It's called being afraid as they have been detected, which if you're a criminal you don't particularly want as it leads to arrest, sentencing, prison...you get the idea? Why hang around and risk being identified when you can run for it?
Is basic psychology somehow above you?
Basic psychology there: fight or flight. Take away the tools to fight (with extreme prejudice), you have one option, don't you?You are also forgetting the facts the burglar could be physically superior to person's whose house they're breaking into or just straight up psychopaths that get their kicks out of killing people.
I repeat, if you risk getting a sentence for burglary, why would you want to add assault or murder to your sentence?
Please, stop regurgitating pro-gun apologistic wet dreams.
Note I talk about reducing the number of death by firearm with proper regulation.I know this. And I am arguing your regulation would do more harm than good.
No, you're arguing because you can hit reply, despite having nothing to say and/or add. Big difference.
Note I didn't say this would eliminate stabbings, strangulation, asphyxiation, beatings and any of the other myriad of ways people think of to kill each other on such a regular basis.I didn't inject those into the argument.
"Do you honestly believe if guns are outlawed violence will go away?" - JakeHero, 17th June 2007.
You did - charcoal and white.
Yes, I actually make points, while you just copy and paste Generic Idiot's Argument #407.Correction: I post links and the only outcome, you post hypotheticals without considering variables.
Correction: you post links to the Wikipedia definition of appealing to emotion and random bits on Youtube inbetween reams and reams of incoherant paranoiac's ramblings.
You don't nee dto be incompetent to shoot somebody, you need to be paranoid. BIG DIFFERENCE.Every person who takes a gun safety course is taught that shooting and asking questions later or not remaining calm is a form of incompetence. So do you believe everyone with a handgun is going to become paranoid?
A good percentile of 15,000 people per year would testify if they weren't, you know, dead due to a paranoiac with a handgun.
A gun isn't inanimate, as it has moving parts - a rock is inanimate.Um, guns ARE inanimate. What you listed isn't a criteria to be considered inanimate.
Do people run into bullets at a fast enough speed to have a fatal wound? Strangely, no. That implies animation, then.
Oh, and how about making it just a bit more difficult for a WEAPON to fall into the hands of somebody who might happen to want to use it repeatedly?I'm all for that. Backround checks, waiting periods, clean record all I am arguing against is outlawing types of firearms.
Using an article that bitches about the NY Times "editorialising", yet doing it themselves? And if you read the article, you'd note this passage:
"There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls. "
Sorry, isn't that what I've been saying - easy access to guns means any wannabe two-bit gangsta can get a gun and will be stupid with it?
Sorry, a background check may not pick up on their gang history/membership, for the simple reason that a background check on Ted Bundy wouldn't scream "potential serial killer" at you.
This is a generic fallback - indeed all your proposed measures are - yet none of them are remotely foolproof. Come on, Cho shouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm (let alone two), but did. Enough people have sat through their waiting periods to get hold of a gun, then used it in the manner it wasn't sold for (although it was designed for). And i's easy to have a clean record before you shoot somebody - Harris and Klebold did, among others.
At 6/20/07 01:42 PM, Proteas wrote:
So am I to understand that you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a firearm is a living weapon and actually causes crime on it's own?
Until people somehow find a way to run into the bullets it fires (i.e. a projectile), it cannot be qualified as inanimate.
Also, they have moving parts. How else do you think the next bullet gets into the chamber - magic?!? It loads the bullets itself, and the bullets are what does the damage. It is not inanimate in the same way as a rock, because to use one as a weapon, you have to pick it up and throw it. A gun you just point and pull the trigger, it does the rest for you.
At 6/17/07 04:24 PM, JakeHero wrote:At 6/17/07 01:02 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Yes. We're also familiar with stating facts.Yes, something gun-control advocates don't do often.
Great, now I have a reason to take you apart along with your argument, going by THAT opening gambit.
We're also aware that by bringing that up, you're trying to duck the issue without giving up your "right" to post a response.I've already echoed the same shit, as the other guy has. It isn't good to be redundant, no?
Was it you or the other guy who posts the same thing across threads, complete with the link to the Wikipedia page on it?
By the way, why haven't you posted this when some bullshit dispenser comes up with the "Obviously you're just a piece of shit who wants law abiding citizens to be unarmed so they can be raped and murdered by criminals. YOU HAVE THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FUCKBAG" argument.I don't think so. If so, could you quote me and which thread, because I've said gun control disarms law abiding citizens, but the other stuff I'm not sure. Anyone who isn't a total dumbshit could see that much.
Here we go, your argument posted by WolvenBear in the manner of an idiot that happens to be appealing to emotion while using the lowest common denomenator at the same time.
Did I say I was quoting you? No? How does it feel to make a redundant excuse for a point?
Also it misses the fact that, if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands, rather than use a gun which is, frankly, pussyish.Right, when you're walking down the street in the Middle of Columbia, LA, Brooklyn, etc and fifteen ghetto kids walk up to you and decide they're going to hurt you bad, well, why don't you try your idiotic notion of masculinity. That or you could beat off to kick boxing some more. We'll all be laughing at your bull-headed stupidity when you end in the hospital with fractured lungs and broken bones.
Great way to miss the point!
I say : "if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands."
You say...some unrelated stuff about ghetto kids.
You'll find that every two-bit gangsta wannabe suddenly won't be able to get hold of a gun, so that's a chunk off the 15,000 p/a already.You're a bigger fool than I thought if you actually believe this shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
It seems to escape you lot, doesn't it - there's a big difference between having a gun and shooting somebody, and not having a gun and not shooting somebody.
In this country, your average burglar can't get a handgun because they're banned, so to get them out of your house you cliterally switch the lights on and they bail. In the US, they panic and open fire. Basic psychology there: fight or flight. Take away the tools to fight (with extreme prejudice), you have one option, don't you?
Every paranoid idiot who thinks the people outside their house are loitering with intent to rape and murder his family (coincidentally there's a bus stop there) won't be able to accidentally shoot their friends, family or neighbours because they thought the Manson Family had reformed just to get them is another chunk off the 15,000 p/a.Right. And let me tell you that every delusional fuckoff who thinks everyone with a gun is incompetent enough to shoot someone for no reason has no voice of credibility on the issue. Do you honestly believe if guns are outlawed violence will go away?
Congratulations for reaching the point where taking you seriously is nigh-on impossible by reaching the same point that everyone who has nothing to say makes with a textbook take on the "Do you honestly believe if guns are outlawed violence will go away?" argument.
Note I talk about reducing the number of death by firearm with proper regulation. Note I didn't say this would eliminate stabbings, strangulation, asphyxiation, beatings and any of the other myriad of ways people think of to kill each other on such a regular basis. Yes, I actually make points, while you just copy and paste Generic Idiot's Argument #407.
You don't nee dto be incompetent to shoot somebody, you need to be paranoid. BIG DIFFERENCE.
"Oh Let's punish the inanimate object for the wrongdoings of its handler! Hurry, before I piss my panties!"
A gun isn't inanimate, as it has moving parts - a rock is inanimate.
Oh, and how about making it just a bit more difficult for a WEAPON to fall into the hands of somebody who might happen to want to use it repeatedly?
Please, stop polluting the boards with your generic stupidity. We have enough people just likee you, making the same non-points on the same subject, yet seem to think people who disagree with you logically and concisely are the ones lacking credibility.
Well, the six months is up, so once again the BBC is castigated for its "liberal bias" - which is patently untrue, as their bias is more along the lines of "Don't make Tony angry, or we're in trouble, so placate him at all costs."
Of late, the BBC news is becoming more and more like Sky News - i.e. Fox News - with presentation winning out over journalism at every turn and, since Sky News is the news on Five, about the only non-tabloid, objective, journalistic-based news available is on Channel 4.
Of course, British news reporting has shifted from journalism to comment for the past ten years across media, so newspapers lack objectivity.
Proteas, read this sentence again: "What did he kill people with - his anti-social angst, or a combination of a Walther P22 and a Glock 19?"
That implies he was able to get his hands on not one, but two guns - and the ammunition for them, including hollow points - despite the fact he should have been ineligible to buy one.
Please, try not to duck the issue and realise the responsibility lies with those who make guns freely available, yet somehow seem confused when somebody uses them for what they were designed for.
The fact that McVeigh made a fertiliser bomb proves he wasn't acting on some sudden bout of rage, but put some thinking into what he would need to use to cause maximum devastation in as short a time as possible, which he did so. Cho et al, however, could quickly go out on a killing spree because they knew they could get the tools to do so ASAP.
I take issue with that - any notion of the BBC being worth anything, that is. They're journalism has become more and more tabloid and less, you know, journalistic for a couple of years.
When a main broadcast was headlined with talk of attacking Iran three months ago (including targets and a rough timeframe) for no logical reason due to no declaration of war against Iran, as well as using their broadcasts to plug upcoming BBC programmes, they became Fox News wannabes.
And this is before considering how scared they are of incurring the wrath of Tony Blair following the Hutton Whitewash - so, every other news programme on every other channel can criticise Blair, but they won't.
It's one of the most misused words in the English language, along with irony and genius (considering the amount of times I've heard Jack White and Pete Doherty described thus).
At 6/16/07 05:50 PM, JakeHero wrote:At 6/16/07 05:42 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: 32 kids dead because of a nut who got guns is a massacre.*Ahem* Is anyone familiar with appeal to emotion?
Yes. We're also familiar with stating facts. We're also aware that by bringing that up, you're trying to duck the issue without giving up your "right" to post a response.
By the way, why haven't you posted this when some bullshit dispenser comes up with the "Obviously you're just a piece of shit who wants law abiding citizens to be unarmed so they can be raped and murdered by criminals. YOU HAVE THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS FUCKBAG" argument.
Isn't that appealing to emotion (albeit in the manner of a complete dickhead) too?
Also it misses the fact that, if your family had been raped and murdered, you'd want to tear the person apart with your bare hands, rather than use a gun which is, frankly, pussyish.
One college age girl with a bruise from a baseball bat swung at him by a crazy English major from South Korea who was subdued and beaten to a pulp by her in front of everyone isn't a tragedy.Let's see, if the crazy korean kid wanted a gun so bad he could of simply got it off the blackmarket. Outlawing a tool won't stop it from being used in illicit manner.
You'll find that every two-bit gangsta wannabe suddenly won't be able to get hold of a gun, so that's a chunk off the 15,000 p/a already. Every paranoid idiot who thinks the people outside their house are loitering with intent to rape and murder his family (coincidentally there's a bus stop there) won't be able to accidentally shoot their friends, family or neighbours because they thought the Manson Family had reformed just to get them is another chunk off the 15,000 p/a.
Getting it?
It appears the latest round of Gaza Crises has got the BBC in a bit of a pickle - since they have to be fair and balanced, that means one side has to be seen as the "good guys."
So, ignoring years of Axis of Evil jibes, they take a pro-Hamas slant, on the basis that Hamas are the government (even though, when democratically elected they were forced to form a coalition, but that's not important right now), so for future discussion of the topic you should remember that Fatah are the baddies.
Agreed?
At 6/16/07 05:24 PM, Proteas wrote:At 6/16/07 01:59 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I'll just start by stating that Virginia Tech was over two months ago, and somehow people haven't got around to thinking maybe it might have been gun-related.As much as has been said in the last two months about Cho's anti-social tendencies dating as far back as his 8th birthday, you still want to shift the focus to the gun being the cause of this shooting as opposed the sociopath weilding it?
What did he kill people with - his anti-social angst, or a combination of a Walther P22 and a Glock 19?
That is dishonest, and opprotunistic, d2k. For shame.
Oh come on...
Is this the reason the elephant is going extinct, because somebody took the phrase "elephant in the room" too literally and started gunning them down?
The fact Cho could get hold of a gun so easily is the reason so many people died that day, just like with Harris & Klebold, just like Charles Whitman, just like James Huberty - how does this concept keep bouncing off your brains with a resounding thud time and again?
What's dishonest is trying to duck the issue, time and again, for two months. Because that's responsible...
I'll just start by stating that Virginia Tech was over two months ago, and somehow people haven't got around to thinking maybe it might have been gun-related.
Coincidentally, last Sunday half a dozen people died in a single murder/suicide in Alabama, whilst in the UK only one person was shot to death - a woman with a replica gun (until the story changes again, since it was apparently an air gun before - bets it was a water pistol to be placed now) by the police.
Indeed, it's another case of our police being given guns and losing their responsibility as soon as you say "TERRORIST!" loudly and/or often enough.
At 6/13/07 06:34 PM, TheMason wrote:At 6/13/07 11:03 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:Do you see me making those comparison? No...because I do not care what the laws are in the UK. I do not care what the crime rate is in the UK. Both of us live in the Western world where movement is free, and if I wanted to live in a European system under your laws and culture I would move there.At 6/10/07 02:58 PM, TheMason wrote:We only had 78 in the UK last year, but the pro-gun nutjobs on this board seem to think this makes the UK a hotbed of gun-related violence and death, while the US is perfectly fine & dandy...
It's a pre-emptive strike, nipping it in the bud before anyone stepped in with it. Which they have. Repeatedly. Not tiresome...
However, I do find the difference in the ratio to be interesting and wonder what explains that. How many driving deaths are there in the UK? I just wonder if the ratio will naturally increase with larger populations...
For 2004 (bloody Google needs to update a bit...)
US: 42,636
UK: 3,221
Again, that isn't 20% of the US statistic, even with similar speed limits.
Again...not concerned with what it is in the UK. Besides, it is not murder in every locale in the US. Either way, there are just as many people killed by criminal misuse of cars than are killed by guns. That was my point...parse the point as much as you want but you have yet to significantly undermine it.
I just did - 15 times more people, that's an increase of 1500%, die in auto accidents in the US than in the UK with similar speed limits - again, that isn't a case of taking the UK rate and multiplying by five.
There's a point where it stops being about larger populations, and starts to be about something else: responsibility.
No...this is why the best statistics are the older ones (such as 2001-2003) because you can firm up your numbers due to investigations.
It still remains a murder isn't a murder until it's reported - that's why the murder rate in the 19th Century is pure guesswork.
Furthermore, as crime fighting tools become more effecient and American police become better equipped and trained (especially in rural areas) the more things that once would go undected as murder (or that it would even happen in the first place) are increasing.
Just like our police have become more efficient with better equipment and training - shooting an innocent man in the head 11 times at point blank range with hollow points (and feeding us a series of lies about his actions that were disproven rapidly). Or shooting somebody and saying it was self-inflicted, despite the shot being impossible to anyone with the most basic ballistics knowledge.
Indeed, our police are lacking in a lot of responsibilities - more people are killed in police car chases by the police car than the car it is chasing, which doesn't add up if you think about it. But, again, take responsibility away and start to talk about "rights" and "defence" enough times, people might ignore the problem, but it never goes away - as it will happen, once again, and the debate starts again.
At 6/10/07 05:28 PM, JakeHero wrote:At 6/10/07 02:51 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Actually, you tend to get more gun-related deaths when you can freely gain access to guns -I wanna see some statistics that proportionally a gun lax society has higher murder rate of guns than one with strict gun control.
I don't see the UK or Australia on that list.
people cleaning their gun and it going off, accidentally shooting somebody when hunting, thinking a relative is a burglar and pulling the trigger, amongst numerous other ways the US has a five-figure gun-related bodycount every year, while the UK has the grand total of 78.Guess what? Let's take into consideration the higher population of the US, plus the increase of gun violence in England.
I've already done this one...
Population of UK: 60m
Population of US: 300m
Gun-related deaths in UK in 2006: 78 (0.00013% of population)
Gun-related deaths in USA in 2006: 15,000 (0.005% of population)
Surely the UK should have 20% of the US's gun-related bodycount, then? Oh, wait, they don't.
This, of course, never computes with the pro-gun lobby, does it?Why should it, it's irrelevant?
Naturally, not having a gun and not shooting somebody is irrelevant as a concept, isn't it?
At 6/10/07 02:58 PM, TheMason wrote:
You know it is not the Wild West in America. For the amount of firearms we have per capita to only have about 35K TOTAL gun deaths a year we're doing fine. In fact cars are more dangerous consumer products over here than guns.
We only had 78 in the UK last year, but the pro-gun nutjobs on this board seem to think this makes the UK a hotbed of gun-related violence and death, while the US is perfectly fine & dandy...
For example, drunk drivers are (in some places) being charged and convicted of murder if they get a deadly car accidents. So, since there are about 15-17,000 people killed (murdered) a year by drunk drivers then just as many Americans are murdered by cars a year than are murdered by guns...
That's more a case of the American judicial system being slightly lax in the definition of what murder actually is: in the UK, that person would be charged for manslaughter at worst, but in the US it's Second Degree Murder.
Also, a murder rate increase can also come from crimes being reported/discovered more often than they used to be.Okay...
Sorry, you seem to find it confusing that it isn't a murder until it's reported, just like any other crime? Just remember they didn't have a clue that John Wayne Gacy was a murderer until the disappearance of victim #33 was reported to the police.
The guy's trying to pin all gun crime in Manchester on that one level of R:FoM - as opposed to, say, the general drug dealers of the Moss Side area and the gang violence that springs up from it.
Although somebody else has pointed out that the gamne's been on release for three months now, so if it took that long for the bishop to reach the cathedral level (which is the second or third level, isn't it?), they must be a really bad gamer.
At 6/10/07 03:38 PM, SevenSeize wrote:At 6/10/07 03:35 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Der-Lowe, your tears are delicious!Why do you hate Brazil so much? Really???
Didn't you notice the Argentinianness inherant in Der-Lowe?
At 6/10/07 01:36 PM, JakeHero wrote:
This is what England and Australia proven, more gun control equals more murder since the only people carrying around guns are criminals, who don't give two shits about the law to begin with.
Actually, you tend to get more gun-related deaths when you can freely gain access to guns - people cleaning their gun and it going off, accidentally shooting somebody when hunting, thinking a relative is a burglar and pulling the trigger, amongst numerous other ways the US has a five-figure gun-related bodycount every year, while the UK has the grand total of 78.
This, of course, never computes with the pro-gun lobby, does it?
At 6/10/07 11:47 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote:
I don't think the parents ever stated that it wasn't their fault, and I'm sure they will regret their mistake for the rest of their lives. If they want to move heaven and earth in an attempt to find their daughter, no matter how futile the attempt may be, then good for them.
Funny, they seem to have been doing a good job of shifting the blame onto the Portuguese police for not finding her (of course, losing her in the first place never comes up in casual conversation).
And the real question should be why they flashed up an ad at the UEFA Cup Final - a match between two Spanish teams, played in Scotland? Yeah, that'll jog somebody's memory...
At 6/10/07 10:52 AM, Brick-top wrote: Its the parents fault. You get plenty of warning about sick and twisted people in the world and what do they do? Leave her in the hotel room by her self. Pair of fucking idiots.
Not if her three siblings wer ealso there. Come on, if you were a paedophilic murderer, you'd think you hit the jackpot if that was so freely available, so why take just the one?
At 6/10/07 10:39 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
When punishment for crime is strong, people are less cooerced to commit the crime.
What do the following states all have in common: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina?
Answer, they're nine of the ten states with the most firearms deaths (Michigan is in at #7), yet they all have the death penalty - of that list, Florida has the electric chair, so you can't say that strong punishment is a deterrant, as the state is the fourth highest.
At 6/9/07 08:18 PM, Malachy wrote: i've never experienced a tornado...
According to The Daily Mail, we get them all the time because the dirty immigrants brought them with them from Eastern Europe. Well, that covers the 20-second long tornado in a London street last year, and all the other ones we've had. Three this decade or something...
At 6/10/07 09:33 AM, TheMason wrote:At 6/10/07 08:57 AM, ultrabitch wrote: Yeah, but America IS a murder cesspool. 300,000 deaths from gun crime a year. Or is it more?Ummm...no. The number of more like 16,000 (based on 2001 & 2002 numbers). You know, about 18.75x less than your made-up number.
SOURCE
Using statistics that are five years out of date is not a way to base an argument. Just tossing you a bone here.
Ultimately, you fail the people who might be alive if their attackers HADN'T HAD GUNS.Wow...more simplistic bumper sticker logic! I am so impressed by European education!
I'm impressed you didn't spell it "eduKashion" myself.
Yes, not having guns freely available makes it hard for every wannabe career criminal to get hold of one - which is why almost every single one of Britiains shooting deaths are gang/drug/incompetant trigger-happy police related, which you cannot say about America (with a straight face, at least).
Also, a murder rate increase can also come from crimes being reported/discovered more often than they used to be.
At 6/10/07 09:50 AM, dodo-man-1 wrote: Can someone tell me what the hell you all are talking about?
There's a girl named Madeleine McCann who'se negligent parents left her unsupervised on holiday in Portugal as they went for dinner, and were surprised to find her kidnapped when they returned (but the other three kids weren't, suspiciously). Now it's everyone's fault but theirs, but they hope to find her, even if it's a month and a half since she went missing.
Didn't you know you can buy anthrax in Macy's?
Then again, earlier I had some guy pissed off that he was having trouble getting onto the Real IRA website - does that mean that, on a technicality, I was harbouring a terrorist for about an hour?
Idiotic post, idiotic sig, idiotic director. Yeesh, go out of your way to make me hate you why don't you?
I'd like ot see a 10-year old try and get some booze in at an offie myself...
Of course she's dead, she's been gone well over a month now - duh!
Also, it's worth noting that early in the story, one journalist stated that it was the parent's fault for leaving their four children unattended as they went for dinner (or to a pub, whichever you prefer) - which is illegal for under-fives, which Maddie was - but they were practically bl;acklisted for stating the facts and a home truth in the whole case.
If the parents aren't arrested, expect them to spererate quietly shortly afterwards.
It's what happened in the Sarah Paine case: the mother told Sarah to go home - on her own, unsupervised - as she was annoying her, and she walked straight into the path of a child killer.
