Victim disarmament zones

[runlvlzero]

If people actually have say in what shows end up on BBC and how its regulated. I could see it being a valid social means of regulating TV broadcasts.

BBC programming is quite good and I have watched quite a bit over the web (so I will agree in theory that BBC works). Yet I still think people should be able to have their TVs without needing a license and a government snooping around to make sure their not illegally watching BBC. It is a simplified solution to cheap socialized cable. Yet how much control do the people really have over BBC other than simple viewer ship? How does an unknown obscure, yet worthy show get a shot on BBC?

The internet has been great for getting stuff broadcast publicly (Ted Talks).

[Hasbinbad]

TED is in bed with monsanto now, don't you know anything?

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

wait, you're making relative judgements based on what is more or less "free" and then brag about not sliding on slippery slopes?

I don't get where your going with that. America is founded on the ideals of egalitarianism and checks and balances (not going to say things are working). Every man has an opportunity here to make that great big T.V. show and get it air'd. We have the right to do what we want with our computers, hardware and programs (EQEMUlator).

How would these rights fair under a system much more closely monitored and government influenced. Rather than influenced by peoples free use of what they purchased.

The internet is a subsided by us and payed for by our taxes since its inception. In this I say we are responsible for maintaining such things as the freedom of the internet.

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TED is in bed with monsanto now, don't you know anything?

I'm sure theres plenty of biased shit on TED. But theres some good ones too. They are a publisher. Not a content creator. Unless TED is actively refusing to permit anti-GMO view points from being discussed.

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was talking about correlation/causation because that is all about showing how your statistics don't show any kind of causal link. I even gave an example of how causation could be the reverse of what you believe (people who live in countries with less crime feel less of a need for a right to carry weapons).

Feeling the need to carry a weapon is different than feeling the need to kill someone with one. I said murder rates with firearms, and murder rates period, were lower in most countries with stricter gun laws. A lower crime rate overall would certainly be a factor for why gun crime would be lower. And I said that in no way do I view gun laws as the only factor when evaluating the causes of higher murder and other crime rates. In fact, I would hazard to guess the biggest factors would again be education and poverty, for which these countries also have better numbers. However, since we don't seem to be too concerned about combating those issues as we continue to cut funding for education and programs aimed at alleviating poverty, gun control (such as background checks and assault weapons bans), is an alternative place to start. Also, while it may not be the biggest factor in crime, I think it would certainly be hard to justify stricter gun laws making the situation worse.

There are several other devil statistics to consider as well, such as accidental death and injury, number of people killed/injured at a single shooting, rate of injury/death when owning a gun vs those who don't, what percentage of people who own guns are criminals, list goes on. All of this to consider when determining causality and how to move forward with gun control.

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Feeling the need to carry a weapon is different than feeling the need to kill someone with one. I said murder rates with firearms, and murder rates period, were lower in most countries with stricter gun laws. A lower crime rate overall would certainly be a factor for why gun crime would be lower. And I said that in no way do I view gun laws as the only factor when evaluating the causes of higher murder and other crime rates. In fact, I would hazard to guess the biggest factors would again be education and poverty, for which these countries also have better numbers. However, since we don't seem to be too concerned about combating those issues as we continue to cut funding for education and programs aimed at alleviating poverty, gun control (such as background checks and assault weapons bans), is an alternative place to start. Also, while it may not be the biggest factor in crime, I think it would certainly be hard to justify stricter gun laws making the situation worse.

There are several other devil statistics to consider as well, such as accidental death and injury, number of people killed/injured at a single shooting, rate of injury/death when owning a gun vs those who don't, what percentage of people who own guns are criminals, list goes on. All of this to consider when determining causality and how to move forward with gun control.

Or we could focus on liberating people through empowerment before taking away this liberty. Than re-evaluate the need to control guns in a more stable society.

[runlvlzero]

My bet is in a very stable society. Gun control would be a non issue. As people would be responsible and fear would be low. People would be informed. And mass media and lobbyists couldn't even sell it as a useful tact.

[runlvlzero]

Better yet. Do you need to cage monkeys in order to civilize them?

A contemporary movie Rise of the Planet of the Apes comes to mind.

Caging a person turns them into an animal. Taking away their rights and responsibilities does the same.

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Feeling the need to carry a weapon is different than feeling the need to kill someone with one. I said murder rates with firearms, and murder rates period, were lower in most countries with stricter gun laws. A lower crime rate overall would certainly be a factor for why gun crime would be lower. And I said that in no way do I view gun laws as the only factor when evaluating the causes of higher murder and other crime rates. In fact, I would hazard to guess the biggest factors would again be education and poverty, for which these countries also have better numbers. However, since we don't seem to be too concerned about combating those issues as we continue to cut funding for education and programs aimed at alleviating poverty, gun control (such as background checks and assault weapons bans), is an alternative place to start. Also, while it may not be the biggest factor in crime, I think it would certainly be hard to justify stricter gun laws making the situation worse.

There are several other devil statistics to consider as well, such as accidental death and injury, number of people killed/injured at a single shooting, rate of injury/death when owning a gun vs those who don't, what percentage of people who own guns are criminals, list goes on. All of this to consider when determining causality and how to move forward with gun control.

I am as big of a gun nut as the next guy, this I will admit. But honestly I see no problem with stricter background checks. The problem is, Most liberals in our government are total anti-gun nuts to the extent of trying to label an "assault rifle" as a shotgun or deer rifle ( see Diane Fuckstein for reference) ...

And to be quite honest a lot of the bullshit you are spewing is just that, bullshit. Look at areas in our country with very strict gun laws such as Illinois (Chitcago), statistics will clearly show that crime is more rampant in areas with strict or absolute ban's on owning workable gun's. The problem this nation faces isn't some redneck rampaging mongoloid owning a gun or trying to be a billy badass and shoot some poor skittle wielding negro boy .

The problem lies in a degradation of morals and doing the right thing as an individual in our society. Not to mention our out of control corrupt government. I don't know how, at this point anyone could call themselves a Republican OR a Democrat. Both are parties full of lying cheating rat fucks. This is truth.

[hatelore]

Back before assault weapon prices went up, Me and my brother were buying sks's at gun shows for like 150 to 200 a pop. Now you can't touch an sks in my neck of the woods for under 600 or so. And there wasn't any waiting , it was , heres the money, thanks for the gun, suck it easy bro~ Looking back, yeah... That is a problem.

But as we have witnessed through history, give the government a little bit, and they snatch up the entire fucking cake. What Dianne Fuckstien and Obama etc want, is an outright BAN on all assault rifles. Now , how do you classify an assault rifle? Because that is where the key to what that ban will get us. Is a semi auto rifle an assault rifle? Is a rifle that holds over 5 rounds an assault rifle? Is a bolt action that shoots over 100 yards an assault rifle? Because there are many semi automatic rifles that hold over 5 rounds that are NOT assault rifles, and numerous bolt action rifles will accurately shoot over 100 yards. An SKS, AR 15, and Ak 47. Yeah those are assault rifles modeled after or used as guns in war.

I would not be surprised to see Obama pass an executive order to ban outright the sale or ownership of an assault rifle. Nothing Obama could do at this point would surprise me.