NATION

PASSWORD

US Gun Control (Yes, again).

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:18 pm

Republica Newland wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
If you can't feed yourself on one deer a day, gun ownership is the least of your worries.


:palm: what, you're supposed to only hunt for yourself? so now back we go to hunter gatherer society where absolutely everyone has to be directly implicated in food procurement? I see a lot of progress in this thread?


I think perhaps you're reading what you want to read, because you're not responding to what I wrote, or the context.

Try again.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:20 pm

Ponderosa wrote:First of all, to all the people saying "Oh no, not another thread like this" you are under no obligation to comment on this. You can keep scrolling down and find a topic that you would be interested in.

Anyway, I support background checks screening for criminals and the mentally ill. I would also require that gun owners with mentally unstable family members to keep their guns locked up. Beyond that, I don't support any gun control. Bans are stupid, because they punish law abiding citizens along with criminals. I also support the relaxation of concealed carry laws, and make the decision to ban guns that of property owners.


I get that America is really hooked on the idea of guns as a 'right', but banning something isn't inherently a 'punishment, or even a bad thing.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Vazdania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19448
Founded: Mar 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Vazdania » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:20 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Vazdania wrote:No.


You want politicians to be ignorant about the laws they debate? That's an... interesting... perspective.

No, I'd love for them to be informed of the topic, but we shouldn't quiz them.
NSG's Resident Constitutional Executive Monarchist!
We Monarchists Stand With The Morals Of The Past, As We Hatch Impossible Treasons Against The Present.

They Have No Voice; So I will Speak For Them. The Right To Life Is Fundamental To All Humans Regardless Of How Developed They Are. Pro-Woman. Pro-Child. Pro-Life.

NSG's Newest Vegetarian!

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:24 pm

Vazdania wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
You want politicians to be ignorant about the laws they debate? That's an... interesting... perspective.

No, I'd love for them to be informed of the topic, but we shouldn't quiz them.


Why?

Lots of skilled jobs now require certification and continuing education to make sure you maintain your expertise at the top of your field - why would that be bad for politicians?

If you don't test them, how do you know your elected representative (and remember, being an expert is their job) actually knows anything?

I see no problem with continuing education requirements for politicians.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Republica Newland
Minister
 
Posts: 2623
Founded: Oct 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Republica Newland » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:25 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Ponderosa wrote:First of all, to all the people saying "Oh no, not another thread like this" you are under no obligation to comment on this. You can keep scrolling down and find a topic that you would be interested in.

Anyway, I support background checks screening for criminals and the mentally ill. I would also require that gun owners with mentally unstable family members to keep their guns locked up. Beyond that, I don't support any gun control. Bans are stupid, because they punish law abiding citizens along with criminals. I also support the relaxation of concealed carry laws, and make the decision to ban guns that of property owners.


I get that America is really hooked on the idea of guns as a 'right', but banning something isn't inherently a punishment, or even a bad thing.


Banning stuff has rarely been a good thing.
F Scale: 2.9(3)
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Aloha.
I play RL-concious. That's just how I roll. Deal with it.
GOODIES IN STOCK!!! - Republica Arms™ - SEARCH FOR TFLRN IN GLOBAL ECONOMICS&TRADE!

User avatar
Republica Newland
Minister
 
Posts: 2623
Founded: Oct 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Republica Newland » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:27 pm

Vazdania wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
You want politicians to be ignorant about the laws they debate? That's an... interesting... perspective.

No, I'd love for them to be informed of the topic, but we shouldn't quiz them.


Well I'll have to say being a politician has got to be one of the most mentally un-challenging jobs out there.
F Scale: 2.9(3)
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Aloha.
I play RL-concious. That's just how I roll. Deal with it.
GOODIES IN STOCK!!! - Republica Arms™ - SEARCH FOR TFLRN IN GLOBAL ECONOMICS&TRADE!

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:28 pm

Republica Newland wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
I get that America is really hooked on the idea of guns as a 'right', but banning something isn't inherently a punishment, or even a bad thing.


Banning stuff has rarely been a good thing.


Actually, 'banning stuff' is arguably what makes life liveable. We prohibit all kinds of things to make our lives sustainable and pleasant. Like murder.

You could argue that banning murder punishes murderers, but I think it is an abuse of the word 'punish'.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:29 pm

Republica Newland wrote:
Vazdania wrote:No, I'd love for them to be informed of the topic, but we shouldn't quiz them.


Well I'll have to say being a politician has got to be one of the most mentally un-challenging jobs out there.


That's not really fair, there are a lot of very intelligent people in politics. It's just that the loudmouthed idiots (looking at you, Ron Paul) make everyone look more stupid just by being in the same room.
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Republica Newland
Minister
 
Posts: 2623
Founded: Oct 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Republica Newland » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:31 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Republica Newland wrote:
Banning stuff has rarely been a good thing.


Actually, 'banning stuff' is arguably what makes life liveable. We prohibit all kinds of things to make our lives sustainable and pleasant. Like murder.

You could argue that banning murder punishes murderers, but I think it is an abuse of the word 'punish'.


No, I would not. WTF. Murderers deserve punishment. What are you talking about?

Gun owners, on the other hand, do not. See?

Now, murder has been banned a long time ago. My argument still stands. Banning stuff rarely does any good, this being an exception.
Last edited by Republica Newland on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
F Scale: 2.9(3)
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Aloha.
I play RL-concious. That's just how I roll. Deal with it.
GOODIES IN STOCK!!! - Republica Arms™ - SEARCH FOR TFLRN IN GLOBAL ECONOMICS&TRADE!

User avatar
Republica Newland
Minister
 
Posts: 2623
Founded: Oct 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Republica Newland » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:32 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Republica Newland wrote:
Well I'll have to say being a politician has got to be one of the most mentally un-challenging jobs out there.


That's not really fair, there are a lot of very intelligent people in politics. It's just that the loudmouthed idiots (looking at you, Ron Paul) make everyone look more stupid just by being in the same room.


DeGette comes to mind. Or anyone preaching the cult of the Evil Black Rifles.
F Scale: 2.9(3)
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Aloha.
I play RL-concious. That's just how I roll. Deal with it.
GOODIES IN STOCK!!! - Republica Arms™ - SEARCH FOR TFLRN IN GLOBAL ECONOMICS&TRADE!

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:52 pm

Republica Newland wrote:No, I would not. WTF. Murderers deserve punishment. What are you talking about?


*sigh*

Relax. Take a breath. Slow down and read it again.

I said that banning things isn't inherently a punishment, and that we ban all kinds of things, to make our lives liveable.

For example, murder. I'm saying you could argue that banning it (murder) is a punishment. If you argue that bans are inherently punitive.

Now slow down and look at that - you don't agree that banning murder is a punishment, do you?

So, logically - banning things isn't actually (inherently) a punishment.

Republica Newland wrote:Gun owners, on the other hand, do not. See?


And I'm saying that gun owners aren't inherently being 'punished' by a ban.

(Not that I'm pro-ban - I'm not. I'm just objecting to this line about bans being punishment).

Republica Newland wrote:Now, murder has been banned a long time ago. My argument still stands. Banning stuff rarely does any good, this being an exception.


Are you under the impression murder is the only thing prohibited by law?
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Republica Newland
Minister
 
Posts: 2623
Founded: Oct 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Republica Newland » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:01 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Republica Newland wrote:No, I would not. WTF. Murderers deserve punishment. What are you talking about?


*sigh*

Relax. Take a breath. Slow down and read it again.

I said that banning things isn't inherently a punishment, and that we ban all kinds of things, to make our lives liveable.

For example, murder. I'm saying you could argue that banning it (murder) is a punishment. If you argue that bans are inherently punitive.

Now slow down and look at that - you don't agree that banning murder is a punishment, do you?

So, logically - banning things isn't actually (inherently) a punishment.

Republica Newland wrote:Gun owners, on the other hand, do not. See?


And I'm saying that gun owners aren't inherently being 'punished' by a ban.

(Not that I'm pro-ban - I'm not. I'm just objecting to this line about bans being punishment).

Republica Newland wrote:Now, murder has been banned a long time ago. My argument still stands. Banning stuff rarely does any good, this being an exception.


Are you under the impression murder is the only thing prohibited by law?


Drugs are banned and there is no good from that.
F Scale: 2.9(3)
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Aloha.
I play RL-concious. That's just how I roll. Deal with it.
GOODIES IN STOCK!!! - Republica Arms™ - SEARCH FOR TFLRN IN GLOBAL ECONOMICS&TRADE!

User avatar
Grave_n_idle
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44837
Founded: Feb 11, 2004
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Grave_n_idle » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:06 pm

Republica Newland wrote:Drugs are banned and there is no good from that.


I fear we're heading into a hijack I don't intend to pursue too far.

The point is that banning things isn't inherently punitive. That banning things can be good.

The point is NOT 'hey, can you find an exception'.


That said - and while I do think we need to have a more permissive attitude towards recreational medication (depsite being straight-edge, myself) - banning drugs certainly does do some 'good'. The only question is whether it does it fairly and effectively.

For example - parents with kids in the house shouldn't be cracked out. That way leads to harm to children. So stopping people doing crack with kids in the house... is a good thing.

The question is - is it effective, is it fair?
I identify as
a problem

User avatar
Fireye
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1245
Founded: Mar 27, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Fireye » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:09 pm

Ponderosa wrote:First of all, to all the people saying "Oh no, not another thread like this" you are under no obligation to comment on this. You can keep scrolling down and find a topic that you would be interested in.

Aren't you about 40 pages too late for this post to be relevant?
Last edited by Fireye on Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/235745/

Proud Member of the National Canine Association. We Defend Dogs and Dog Owners Alike

User avatar
Republica Newland
Minister
 
Posts: 2623
Founded: Oct 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Republica Newland » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:19 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Republica Newland wrote:Drugs are banned and there is no good from that.


I fear we're heading into a hijack I don't intend to pursue too far.

The point is that banning things isn't inherently punitive. That banning things can be good.

The point is NOT 'hey, can you find an exception'.


That said - and while I do think we need to have a more permissive attitude towards recreational medication (depsite being straight-edge, myself) - banning drugs certainly does do some 'good'. The only question is whether it does it fairly and effectively.

For example - parents with kids in the house shouldn't be cracked out. That way leads to harm to children. So stopping people doing crack with kids in the house... is a good thing.

The question is - is it effective, is it fair?


No, you still don't get it. You're acting like I'm finding you exceptions from the general rule of banning being good, when I am in fact doing the exact opposite.

Do you even know how long a crack high lasts? Or rather, should I say, doesn't last? Thought so.

Even that being said, crack is still pretty god damn addictive. One could that argue that with lax laws and high quality cheap coke few would still be on the pipe.

EDIT: Also, stopping parents from doing crack is anywhere from miles to light years away from the war on drugs if somehow you were trying to defend it.
Last edited by Republica Newland on Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
F Scale: 2.9(3)
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Aloha.
I play RL-concious. That's just how I roll. Deal with it.
GOODIES IN STOCK!!! - Republica Arms™ - SEARCH FOR TFLRN IN GLOBAL ECONOMICS&TRADE!

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9890
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chernoslavia » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:21 pm

Jassysworth 1 wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote: :rofl:

No. Illegal arms are one of the largest black market industries in the world. If you want to buy a gun illegally, you can. Making guns illegal for legal people will only reduce their chance to defend themselves.


Criminals in France don't regularly use guns... guns are almost completely banned there.

Criminals in the USA do regularly use guns... gnus are not banned.

Connect the dots...

If your logic were correct (banning guns means a shit ton of criminals will use guns) then we should be seeing a ridiculous number of gun crimes in Japan, France, South Korea etc where they are banned. We don't.

Gun bans (or de facto gun bans in which close to every civilian doesn't own a gun) are a success around the world. Give me one example of a developed country that is now experiencing MASSIVE proportions of gun crimes despite having a gun ban. There are none.

The empirical evidence shows that gun bans work in the developed world after you give them some time. Every country that has implemented them that has been a developed country has had success with it. Hell, even countries like China manage to keep guns out of 99% of the people and they aren't even a truly developed country.

The idea that banning guns is ''unsustainable'' and will lead to a permanent rise in the number of gun crimes and gun violence with tons of innocents killed is not supported by the empirical evidence. If that were true than we should be seeing ridiculous amounts of gun violence everywhere in the developed world except in America where people can ''defend themselves'' because guns are not banned.


Examples of "developed" countries with gun bans and gun crime:

China
Venezuela
Colombia
Russia
Jamaica
Brazil
Mexico
South Africa

And these are just few of many.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9890
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chernoslavia » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:24 pm

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Republica Newland wrote:No, I would not. WTF. Murderers deserve punishment. What are you talking about?


*sigh*

Relax. Take a breath. Slow down and read it again.

I said that banning things isn't inherently a punishment, and that we ban all kinds of things, to make our lives liveable.

For example, murder. I'm saying you could argue that banning it (murder) is a punishment. If you argue that bans are inherently punitive.

Now slow down and look at that - you don't agree that banning murder is a punishment, do you?

So, logically - banning things isn't actually (inherently) a punishment.

Republica Newland wrote:Gun owners, on the other hand, do not. See?


And I'm saying that gun owners aren't inherently being 'punished' by a ban.

(Not that I'm pro-ban - I'm not. I'm just objecting to this line about bans being punishment).

Republica Newland wrote:Now, murder has been banned a long time ago. My argument still stands. Banning stuff rarely does any good, this being an exception.


Are you under the impression murder is the only thing prohibited by law?


But banning something that can be used to protect people is punishment.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Republica Newland
Minister
 
Posts: 2623
Founded: Oct 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Republica Newland » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:25 pm

Unsurprisingly, tight gun control hasn't done shit for the US either ; Gun Free Zones in schools and look how many massacres still. Chicago the gun control mecca is also among US' most violent cities.

Good job gun control!
F Scale: 2.9(3)
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Aloha.
I play RL-concious. That's just how I roll. Deal with it.
GOODIES IN STOCK!!! - Republica Arms™ - SEARCH FOR TFLRN IN GLOBAL ECONOMICS&TRADE!

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9890
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chernoslavia » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:38 pm

Divair wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote: :palm: Implying that all non democratic countries are shitty and undeveloped.

Name one modern non-democratic country that isn't.


Exactly.


Russia and China.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Lunatic Goofballs
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 23629
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunatic Goofballs » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:39 pm

Ifreann wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
More specifically, the express purpose of the Second Amendment is to promote marksmanship and gun care among the general population in case they need to be organized for defense.

Which is presumably why they let you keep making those catapults. In case you need to make artillery for defence.


That, and they can't get close enough to do anything about it without being blinded by a blueberry pie rain. :)
Life's Short. Munch Tacos.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
Hornesia
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Jul 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Hornesia » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:40 pm

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Which is presumably why they let you keep making those catapults. In case you need to make artillery for defence.


That, and they can't get close enough to do anything about it without being blinded by a blueberry pie rain. :)

They're also what we have to use until the burrito bomber is upgraded to tacos as well.
Hobbies:Civil war reenacting, Filmmaking doing stupid things with cars
Music: Hardcore Punk/Metalcore/Post-Hardcore/Screamo/Whatever they're calling loud music with screaming these days
Bands I'm into: Silverstein, Defeater, The Ghost Inside, Expire, Ice Nine Kills, Andrew Jackson Jihad, Amidst The Grave's Demons
Movies/TV: The Dirties, End of Watch, Sicario, Frozen, True Detective, The Fall, Happy Valley
Literature: Kurt Vonnegut, The Kite Runner, Truman Capote, Southern Gothic

Pseudo-redneck half Jew liberal from the deep south.

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9890
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chernoslavia » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:42 pm

Vorshka wrote:What I find WRONG about the US alws,if that you need to register Airsoft rifles.


Are you sure your not mistaking us for another country?
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Uieurnthlaal
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6979
Founded: Jan 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Uieurnthlaal » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:49 pm

Chernoslavia wrote:
Jassysworth 1 wrote:
Criminals in France don't regularly use guns... guns are almost completely banned there.

Criminals in the USA do regularly use guns... gnus are not banned.

Connect the dots...

If your logic were correct (banning guns means a shit ton of criminals will use guns) then we should be seeing a ridiculous number of gun crimes in Japan, France, South Korea etc where they are banned. We don't.

Gun bans (or de facto gun bans in which close to every civilian doesn't own a gun) are a success around the world. Give me one example of a developed country that is now experiencing MASSIVE proportions of gun crimes despite having a gun ban. There are none.

The empirical evidence shows that gun bans work in the developed world after you give them some time. Every country that has implemented them that has been a developed country has had success with it. Hell, even countries like China manage to keep guns out of 99% of the people and they aren't even a truly developed country.

The idea that banning guns is ''unsustainable'' and will lead to a permanent rise in the number of gun crimes and gun violence with tons of innocents killed is not supported by the empirical evidence. If that were true than we should be seeing ridiculous amounts of gun violence everywhere in the developed world except in America where people can ''defend themselves'' because guns are not banned.


Examples of "developed" countries with gun bans and gun crime:

China
Venezuela
Colombia
Russia
Jamaica
Brazil
Mexico
South Africa

And these are just few of many.

I hope that's a joke. If it is, please say so, since it is impossible to tell on the internet whether people are crazy or just joking. If it's not a joke, than not a single one of those is considered particularly "developed".
Last edited by Uieurnthlaal on Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Official Name : Hanruskë Vangareksau Vjörnatlalos

Language : Vjörnissa

User avatar
Chernoslavia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9890
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Chernoslavia » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:55 pm

Uieurnthlaal wrote:
Chernoslavia wrote:
Examples of "developed" countries with gun bans and gun crime:

China
Venezuela
Colombia
Russia
Jamaica
Brazil
Mexico
South Africa

And these are just few of many.

I hope that's a joke. If it is, please say so, since it is impossible to tell on the internet whether people are crazy or just joking. If it's not a joke, than not a single one of those is considered particularly "developed".


1. Define developed.

2. Whether a country is developed (whatever that's supposed to mean) or not isnt relevent.
Last edited by Chernoslavia on Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? Or if during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Uieurnthlaal
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6979
Founded: Jan 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Uieurnthlaal » Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:06 pm

Chernoslavia wrote:
Uieurnthlaal wrote:I hope that's a joke. If it is, please say so, since it is impossible to tell on the internet whether people are crazy or just joking. If it's not a joke, than not a single one of those is considered particularly "developed".


1. Define developed.

2. Whether a country is developed (whatever that's supposed to mean) or not isnt relevent.

Developed. Do I have to define common knowledge to you? OK. D e v e l o p e d.
2. Of course it's relevant. If you live in Namibia, your going to have more crime than if you live in Iceland, because Namibia is much less developed. While Iceland has progressive policies in education welfare, and a fairly affluent, low-income-inequality populace, Namibia is a poor nation, with underdeveloped infrastructure, and a high level of economic inequality.
Official Name : Hanruskë Vangareksau Vjörnatlalos

Language : Vjörnissa

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bradfordville, Elejamie, Fartsniffage, Galloism, Ifreann, Ostroeuropa, Pizza Friday Forever91, The Archregimancy, The Snazzylands

Advertisement

Remove ads