Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next View previous topic :: View next topic  
PokerSensation
Flush


Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:43 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Seb wrote:
PokerSensation wrote:
This is interesting and I will have a proper read through.

I must say though, I have a general distrust of all governments and there could possibly be times when guns are needed to protect your private property (such as in the case of the riots we had here).


Do you think your property is worth more than someone else's life? Why don't you have insurance?


Do I think my property has more value than a burglars life or somebody who attacks my property or life in an unprovoked attacked? LOL HELL YES.

I do have insurance - you should read the small print.
Indestructible
Royal Flush


Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 15760
Location: Final Table

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:30 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
There have been worse incidents in the past and they haven't learnt anything. Can't see them making any significant changes this time around.
Sad
Seb
Full House


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 912

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:27 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
PokerSensation wrote:
Seb wrote:
Do you think your property is worth more than someone else's life? Why don't you have insurance?


Do I think my property has more value than a burglars life or somebody who attacks my property or life in an unprovoked attacked? LOL HELL YES.


This is the 'empathy erosion' that people talk about.
PokerSensation
Flush


Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:30 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Seb wrote:
PokerSensation wrote:
Seb wrote:
Do you think your property is worth more than someone else's life? Why don't you have insurance?


Do I think my property has more value than a burglars life or somebody who attacks my property or life in an unprovoked attacked? LOL HELL YES.


This is the 'empathy erosion' that people talk about.


Thanks for sharing.
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:09 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Welshman wrote:
...

As with gambling it would seem that the loud minority make the rules & the silent majority suffer.


the loud minority with a lot of money to donate to election campaigns that is
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Indestructible
Royal Flush


Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 15760
Location: Final Table

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:56 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Watching Fox news last night and had to switch over having listened to a retard of a senator trying to justify every weapon and amount of ammo under the sun within the right to arm. Rolling Eyes
darrensprengers
Misclick


Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 7551

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:07 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Barny wrote:
darrensprengers wrote:
its an interesting debate. i think both the 2nd amendmentists and barny are both taking too extreme views and are linked to sensationalist journalism.

canada has more guns per person than america and has relatively no gun crime. switzaland has the right to bear arms and again have little gun crime.

we need to look at the usa as a whole to find out what drives and enables them to willfully kill each other. the gun in this case may be the same as the spoon. the spoon enable the weak to eat more easily than they could with their hands. the gun enables anybody to kill even those much stronger than them. if you have a society that, for whatever sociological reasons, is at war with itself the gun merely facilitates the underlying problems.

Although these underlying problems should be discovered and worked upon you do have to question why the right to bear arms includes assault rifles, grenades and other high velocity weapons.

the 4th amendment has been interpreted to mean that the people have the right to bear arms as an organised, by the government, militia. it probably seems that it was a way to get everyone fighting the british and french etc. its a similar rule to the swiss which has the largest land army in the world due to its rule that all swiss nationals are technically in the army.

its an interesting subject and i like bill hicks' opinion on it. to paraphrase 'you have to wonder at the wisdom of a government that cannot see the connection with not having guns and the reduction of gun crime'.



I wrote my post in a hurry this morning so I'm having to check back just now to see what could be characterised as 'extreme.' ...No, sorry. You'll have to help me with that. In any case, beyond the original report I haven't consumed any journalism on the subject. Sensational or otherwise.

Regarding the varying statistics on gun crime. No-body is saying (as far as I know) that access to guns is the ONLY factor affecting crime rates. But it is a necessary condition for widespread gun crime. You're a lot more likely to be shot, if there's a gun in the room.
If it's true that the USA commits more gun crime with the same amount of guns then this is hardly an argument against US gun-control. On the contrary, it suggests they need it more.

When you say "the gun merely facilitates(sic) the underlying problems" I have to question your choice of the word 'merely'. Having guns 'merely' means that people get killed and injured in staggering numbers. Merely? Whatever other problems contribute to violent crime I have to say that widespread uncontrolled gun ownership qualifies as a serious problem in it's own right.


why don't we ban cars that do over 70 mile per hour? thousands more die every year from reckless driving.

smoking kills many more thousands. lets ban that

drinking kills thousands every year. ban that

obesity related illnesses kill thousands every year. lets ban refined sugar. lets ban mcdonalds. lets ban burger king. drugs kill much less people than this but are banned.

no lets concentrate on the head line grabbers that we have not become desensitized to. lets ban guns.

I think some thought should be put to how they would do this. would you like to live in america where the police are armed and you are not? with the amount of guns already in possession you could not unarm the police force safely.

The nation seems to honour and cherish its freedom beyond all other considerations. these considerations dont even tun to the considerations of other countries.

We had a similar thing in dunblane so its not just an american illness. norway had one of the worst ever. Lets look to the causes of such social outcasts that develop this pychopathic tendencies.
Barny
Mobster


Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 1136

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:47 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
darrensprengers wrote:

why don't we ban cars that do over 70 mile per hour? thousands more die every year from reckless driving.

smoking kills many more thousands. lets ban that

drinking kills thousands every year. ban that

obesity related illnesses kill thousands every year. lets ban refined sugar. lets ban mcdonalds. lets ban burger king. drugs kill much less people than this but are banned.

no lets concentrate on the head line grabbers that we have not become desensitized to. lets ban guns.

I think some thought should be put to how they would do this. would you like to live in america where the police are armed and you are not? with the amount of guns already in possession you could not unarm the police force safely.

The nation seems to honour and cherish its freedom beyond all other considerations. these considerations dont even tun to the considerations of other countries.

We had a similar thing in dunblane so its not just an american illness. norway had one of the worst ever. Lets look to the causes of such social outcasts that develop this pychopathic tendencies.



"why don't we ban cars that do over 70 mile per hour? thousands more die every year from reckless driving."

Good idea.

"smoking kills many more thousands. lets ban that"

Worth considering

"drinking kills thousands every year. ban that"

Now hold on...I like a drink.

Millions of people die in hospitals...Ban them.
Old age: Massive killer. Ban it.

I have been subjected to variations of this very silly argument for the last few days. I don't really have much to add to what I said about spoons in my first post.

I have also had a lot of people telling me in all seriousness that the problem in America is that there are NOT ENOUGH GUNS! Apparently if there were no guns at all. Everyone would get shot.

For your assignment today I suggest you open a dictionary and study the meaning of two words: 'Ban' and 'Control'. You will find that they are subtly different.
Or perhaps you already know that. Maybe you are suggesting that there should be no Highway code no DVLA no driving tests, licences, points, bans, speed limits. Maybe anyone should be able to buy an HGV or an armoured tank at Argos and drive it when and where the **** they like.

If guns in the USA were half as controlled as cars are we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
_________________
If it wasn't for luck I'd lose every tournament I played...If I wanted to manage a bankroll I'd be a bank manager.
moosey
Straight


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:22 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Yeh, 'Control' means make law abiding citizens jump through an every increasing number of hoops at ever increasing cost, achieving very little indeed, whilst criminal gun activity remains unfettered.

and...

Ban, means an open and honest playing field where its illegal for everyone, so we all know where we stand, any activity with guns ceases to be and criminal gun activity remains as it was.

I mean controlled substances laws work why not for guns.
moosey
Straight


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:23 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Confused
darrensprengers
Misclick


Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 7551

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:30 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
"Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.21
Between 2000 and 2004, an average of 125,522 Americans (78,680 men and 46,842 women) died of smoking-attributable lung cancer each year.22 Exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers every year.23
Nonsmokers have a 20-30 percent greater chance of developing lung cancer if they are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work."


in 2010 there were just under 13k gun related murders in the usa. If you ban/control guns the maximum you can save is that amount per year. Although the figures have been going down year on year. In England we had under 600 gun related murders last year. Raol moat springs to mind as a recent entry.

Gun control might lessen the amount but not as much as banning. So there is no moral view that can say gun control is better than banning.

The only other option would be incredibly extensive psychometric tests and only low velocity weapons. This will not stop the 6-700 accidental gun deaths per year recorded in america.
Barny
Mobster


Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 1136

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:11 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
darrensprengers wrote:
"Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.21
Between 2000 and 2004, an average of 125,522 Americans (78,680 men and 46,842 women) died of smoking-attributable lung cancer each year.22 Exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers every year.23
Nonsmokers have a 20-30 percent greater chance of developing lung cancer if they are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work."


in 2010 there were just under 13k gun related murders in the usa. If you ban/control guns the maximum you can save is that amount per year. Although the figures have been going down year on year. In England we had under 600 gun related murders last year. Raol moat springs to mind as a recent entry.

Gun control might lessen the amount but not as much as banning. So there is no moral view that can say gun control is better than banning.

The only other option would be incredibly extensive psychometric tests and only low velocity weapons. This will not stop the 6-700 accidental gun deaths per year recorded in america.



I don't understand. Are we now trying to chose whether we should do something about the problems related to tobacco OR guns? Do we have to choose which is the bigger problem and only tackle that?
_________________
If it wasn't for luck I'd lose every tournament I played...If I wanted to manage a bankroll I'd be a bank manager.
Alex B
Straight Flush


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2856
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:13 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
We need an idea of how much legalization, control, and prohibition each cost to implement, to compare to the downside death rates.

When comparing to the UK. we also need to consider how many potential gun-murders substitute down to knife murders - i.e. we should probably just compare total murder rates, assuming people use whatever tools they have available.

I was under the impression pools are more dangerous than guns? Are we still way more likely to die driving to the American cinema than being shot inside it?

Is this a material consideration that is worth devoting energy to discussing, or is it like when the Daily Mail says something TRIPLES your risk of unusual cancer, from 0.00000001% to 0.00000003%?
Seb
Full House


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 912

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:37 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
PokerSensation wrote:
Seb wrote:
PokerSensation wrote:
Do I think my property has more value than a burglars life or somebody who attacks my property or life in an unprovoked attacked? LOL HELL YES.


This is the 'empathy erosion' that people talk about.


Thanks for sharing.


It wasn't a judgement. Some of my favourite people are psychopaths.
pembo
Full House


Joined: 20 Mar 2011
Posts: 1020
Location: Marske-by-the-Sea/Cambridge

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:49 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
darrensprengers wrote:


why don't we ban cars that do over 70 mile per hour? thousands more die every year from reckless driving.

smoking kills many more thousands. lets ban that

drinking kills thousands every year. ban that

obesity related illnesses kill thousands every year. lets ban refined sugar. lets ban mcdonalds. lets ban burger king. drugs kill much less people than this but are banned.

no lets concentrate on the head line grabbers that we have not become desensitized to. lets ban guns.

Apart from the cars, everything else you mention is self-inflicted, you are comparing apples with oranges.

You can prevent yourself from smoking, drinking too much and eating shit, but you can't help it when someone walks into the cinema you are in and starts firing into the crowd.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hendon Mob Forum Index -> Non-Poker General Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum