NationStates

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:22 am**

Locus Praemonstratus wrote:Pretty mad bros some American keeps telling me to provide proof... don’t know what he means by proof I suspect he’s going to dismiss it as ‘not proof!1!!’... which is why he doesn’t reveal a standard to work with... Help?!

Just post what you think is proof. What's the worst that will happen? Answer: Everyone's views stay the same is the worst case scenario.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:22 am**

As an aside, I just ordered a DVD disc set of Band of Brothers and The Pacific. I haven't seen either before (at least as a dedicated watch) but I've been told they're very good.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:22 am**

The New California Republic wrote:
Locus Praemonstratus wrote:Pretty mad bros some American keeps telling me to provide proof... don’t know what he means by proof I suspect he’s going to dismiss it as ‘not proof!1!!’... which is why he doesn’t reveal a standard to work with... Help?!

Splitting hairs. Just put evidence on the table so it can be discussed.

So you can dismiss it outright as ‘unscientific’ or ‘unsubstantial’? I can tell you, bud, I don’t have a study that’s says Great Britain persecutes Christians, if that’s what you’re looking for.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:24 am**

Locus Praemonstratus wrote:Pretty mad bros some American keeps telling me to provide proof... don’t know what he means by proof I suspect he’s going to dismiss it as ‘not proof!1!!’... which is why he doesn’t reveal a standard to work with... Help?!

Can we fuck off with the emojis please? You’re not twelve or a pensioner with an iPhone.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:24 am**

Salus Maior wrote:
Genivaria wrote:Shame that the British didn't develop and industrialize India more.
SO. MANY. FACTORY WORKERS.

Keeping India was never in the cards. At least, not as anything more as a minority ruled colonial state.

If Britain tried to incorporate them into the British government, they would have taken over because their population would eclipse pretty much the rest of the Empire.

True, India’s population was too big for the UK to handle without becoming India.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:25 am**

Locus Praemonstratus wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Splitting hairs. Just put evidence on the table so it can be discussed.

So you can dismiss it outright as ‘unscientific’ or ‘unsubstantial’? I can tell you, bud, I don’t have a study that’s says Great Britain persecutes Christians, if that’s what you’re looking for.

And for another page you are continuing to stall. I've asked you to put evidence, any evidence, on the table, so that it can be discussed. But yet you continue to stall.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:27 am**

Novus America wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Keeping India was never in the cards. At least, not as anything more as a minority ruled colonial state.

If Britain tried to incorporate them into the British government, they would have taken over because their population would eclipse pretty much the rest of the Empire.

True, India’s population was too big for the UK to handle without becoming India.

Britain would be India's colony instead of the other way around. :ugeek:

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:30 am**

Salus Maior wrote:As an aside, I just ordered a DVD disc set of Band of Brothers and The Pacific. I haven't seen either before (at least as a dedicated watch) but I've been told they're very good.

The Pacific wasn't quite as good imo but Band of Brothers is 10/10.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:30 am**

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Britain would be India's colony instead of the other way around.

Is it not right now?

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:31 am**

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:As an aside, I just ordered a DVD disc set of Band of Brothers and The Pacific. I haven't seen either before (at least as a dedicated watch) but I've been told they're very good.

The Pacific wasn't quite as good imo but Band of Brothers is 10/10.

I've been told on a first watch the Pacific doesn't seem as good, but on a second watch a lot of people appreciate it.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:32 am**

Greater Loegria wrote:
Locus Praemonstratus wrote:Pretty mad bros some American keeps telling me to provide proof... don’t know what he means by proof I suspect he’s going to dismiss it as ‘not proof!1!!’... which is why he doesn’t reveal a standard to work with... Help?!

Can we fuck off with the emojis please? You’re not twelve or a pensioner with an iPhone.

Why don’t you toughen the fuck up princess?

:tiara:

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:33 am**

Locus Praemonstratus wrote:
Greater Loegria wrote:Can we fuck off with the emojis please? You’re not twelve or a pensioner with an iPhone.

Why don’t you toughen the fuck up princess? :tiara:

Shots Fired!

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:33 am**

Locus Praemonstratus wrote:
Greater Loegria wrote:Can we fuck off with the emojis please? You’re not twelve or a pensioner with an iPhone.

Why don’t you toughen the fuck up princess? :tiara:

Are you trying to make me vomit?

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:39 am**

Greater Loegria wrote:
Lower Nubia wrote:
No handguns. Just remove the idea from your mind - no one wins by having more of them. It’s like wanting land mines - yes it would stop a lot of people form getting on your property. But gardens laced with land mines is excessive. The UK has less crime and homicide than the US, the statistics speak for themselves.

Having additional firepower and weapons simply creates an arms race between the perpetrator and the victim. If you’re robbing an American house, it would be stupid not to take a firearm. As a lot of American households have firearms. In the UK that weapon is at most likely going to be a knife. Escalation of a conflict produces more bloodshed, that’s like rule 101 of conflict resolution.

It’s why paradoxically I’m not in favour of banning unregulated gun use in the US, because it would put the populace at a disadvantage but that’s only because gun’s in the are so utterly saturated for the US and would be managed so nonchalantly and poorly.

Which is why Xeno’s point is a self fulfilling prophecy. In cities, most American households do not have weapons, which means having a gun is a genuine deterrent. But that’s only because getting a firearm is so easy elsewhere in the country. The best deterrent is a culture which sees these things as non-essential and dangerous - nut by saturating that culture in their existence.

No I’m not. They’re purely recreational.

No the argument is that, apart from the concealable nature of handguns, if we’re still allowed shotguns and rifles what difference does it make? More people out in the country have firearms than your average London or town suburb dweller might think -I frequently meet people, particularly at uni who think gun ownership is illegal here completely. Not to mention gangs in this country have easy access to firearms anyway, particularly handguns. It will nearly always be the case that the overwhelming majority of license holding firearms-holding citizens will do nothing other with such weapons than to use them on the farm/hunting/recreational shooting or Lord forbid to defend hearth and home -even though courts have found that to be ‘illegal’. Whilst those who would wish to harm society will probably acquire them illegally anyway.

Which is still not a valid reason for the introduction for deregulation concerning handguns. The point is you don’t normalise a weapon into social fabric, it has literally no benefits. The real reducer of crime is education, social policy, and adequate police funding. There is no reason to introduce handguns as a means of defence, they only work as a deterrent in a society that has normalised gun usage. This concept of weapons for self defence is American in nature because it is highly likely your assailant will also have a firearm. That is not the case in England, where the an assailant will have, at most, - is a knife.

As I’ve already said, introducing weapons creates an arms race between the perpetrator and the victim - nothing else - eventually the market becomes saturated and the only means of deterrent is a firearm. The ultimate problem with that is it provides reduced protections for those groups who do not own a weapon. This is the very case in the US where guns are available to any wanna be criminal but most city families do not hold firearms so are immediately disadvantaged in the arms race of crime.

Your position works that all are equal in their ability to own firearms for a valid deterrent to then exist, which, even in the US, is not the case.

The homicide and crime rate is clear - don’t normalise weapons.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:41 am**

Locus Praemonstratus wrote:
Lower Nubia wrote:
Seeing as I’ve preached on the streets on my county, i’m going to ask if you understand between hate speech and free speech. One is allowed. The other is not.

I prefer freedom from racism, not for it.

Why don’t you admit that your country is antichristian?

I thought POC couldn’t be racist?

America is literally the nation that produced the heresy of “Americanism” we have a state religion, it’s just the winds of time has secularised the populace, the same will be the case for the US in 40 years time when the older generations die off.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:44 am**

Locus Praemonstratus wrote:
Greater Loegria wrote:Can we fuck off with the emojis please? You’re not twelve or a pensioner with an iPhone.

Why don’t you toughen the fuck up princess? :tiara:

I’m not going to engage in a flame war with you, otherwise the mods will come swooping in.

But if I’m a princess you’re just some skanky harlot. Now less with the ad hominems and engage in the debate in a sensible and adult way.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:51 am**

Diopolis wrote:
Lower Nubia wrote:
Our homicide rate is still 4* times less than your own. While we even have a higher freedom ranking.

*I believe that’s the current rate.

Considering our respective income inequality levels, I wouldn’t be so quick to point the blame at guns.

You’re right, all those deaths from ‘mass shootings’ wern’t from bullet fire, but actually suicide from the poor prospectus of their financial statements.

I’m glad everyone’s deregulated handguns stopped the assailant before something terrible happened.. oh.. wait. It did fuck all. :roll:

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:54 am**

Whelp I just threw up in my trash can - time to go home lol

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:55 am**

Bear Stearns wrote:Whelp I just threw up in my trash can - time to go home lol

Well done. Enjoy the day off.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:57 am**

Bear Stearns wrote:Whelp I just threw up in my trash can - time to go home lol

Respect the sanctity of the trash can, anarchist scum!

Also, normal person things like "get better soon".

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:58 am**

Lower Nubia wrote:
Locus Praemonstratus wrote:Why don’t you admit that your country is antichristian?

I thought POC couldn’t be racist?

America is literally the nation that produced the heresy of “Americanism” we have a state religion, it’s just the winds of time has secularised the populace, the same will be the case for the US in 40 years time when the older generations die off.

This is true. "Americanism" must die, and will die, eventually.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:02 am**

Nea Byzantia wrote:
Lower Nubia wrote:
America is literally the nation that produced the heresy of “Americanism” we have a state religion, it’s just the winds of time has secularised the populace, the same will be the case for the US in 40 years time when the older generations die off.

This is true. "Americanism" must die, and will die, eventually.

I agree, but not at the expense of people’s freedom of worship of different faiths. There’s nothing that puts people off a religion, than that religion being part and parcel of the tyranny they experience.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:02 am**

Lower Nubia wrote:
Diopolis wrote:Considering our respective income inequality levels, I wouldn’t be so quick to point the blame at guns.

You’re right, all those deaths from ‘mass shootings’ wern’t from bullet fire, but actually suicide from the poor prospectus of their financial statements.

I’m glad everyone’s deregulated handguns stopped the assailant before something terrible happened.. oh.. wait. It did fuck all.

In several cases people with handguns have stopped such incidents.
When they do no not it is because they are not present.

The big problem is mental health.
We completely dismantled our mental health system and paid a big price.

Despite guns being more deregulated than now, such mass shootings rarely occurred in the 50s.
Crime was lower too, despite guns being easier to get.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:04 am**

Novus America wrote:
Lower Nubia wrote:
You’re right, all those deaths from ‘mass shootings’ wern’t from bullet fire, but actually suicide from the poor prospectus of their financial statements.

I’m glad everyone’s deregulated handguns stopped the assailant before something terrible happened.. oh.. wait. It did fuck all.

In several cases people with handguns have stopped such incidents.
When they do no not it is because they are not present.

The big problem is mental health.
We completely dismantled our mental health system and paid a big price.

Despite guns being more deregulated than now, such mass shootings rarely occurred in the 50s.
Crime was lower too, despite guns being easier to get.

Society was a lot healthier and stronger back then, though.

Posted: **Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:06 am**

Novus America wrote:
Lower Nubia wrote:
You’re right, all those deaths from ‘mass shootings’ wern’t from bullet fire, but actually suicide from the poor prospectus of their financial statements.

I’m glad everyone’s deregulated handguns stopped the assailant before something terrible happened.. oh.. wait. It did fuck all.

In several cases people with handguns have stopped such incidents.
When they do no not it is because they are not present.

The big problem is mental health.
We completely dismantled our mental health system and paid a big price.

Despite guns being more deregulated than now, such mass shootings rarely occurred in the 50s.
Crime was lower too, despite guns being easier to get.

You’ve just admitted the failure of deregulating guns. Everyone needs to have one for it to be effective. If 10 mass shootings are stopped with handguns, while another 10 are not, that’s a 50% failure rate. I’m sorry, but that’s not acceptable for the risk.

NationStates

Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment