just checking to see if there really is a maximum number of quotes per thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet
Printable View
just checking to see if there really is a maximum number of quotes per thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Planet
That is a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
vB need to have a max quoted words option so that anything more than said amount gets changed to "this sentence is one word over ... max"
No, it doesn't stop you from using a gun to kill someone. Just as driver's licenses don't stop drivers killing people. But it does reduce the numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionray
Anyway, as I said, the logic seems sound even if you or others don't agree with it.
Excuse me? If I am being accused of something by someone who is doing exactly the same thing, then "super" moderator or Highay Patrol officer I will certainly point out the discrepancy that is existing. Highway Patrol Officers have to abide by certain rules and laws just like anybody else, and the public also have avenues to protect them from abuse by such officers. I'm sure you also have guidelines you're expected to follow. You'll have to point me to the part where Mods are allowed to abuse and name call someone to enforce their position.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVPohovich
Which probably has more to do with the fact that I'm standing up for myself and not backing down. At the moment, you seem to be on the biggest soap box around.Quote:
Notice how all the other wide and varying soapbox shouters are not getting my attention? That should tell you something.
So I'm polite enough to attempt to address as many people's points as I can when having a discussion and that's a bad thing? Okay, next time I'll try to hang around until someone else posts between time, my apologies in advance to anyone if you think I'm ignoring your post/question.Quote:
And you also seem to forget about the back to back to back (and so on) postings, another activity looked down upon here on this Forum.
And I'll ask you as I have been polite enough and taken the time enough to ask others (both in this thread and previously), and to give credit where it's due the only one who has regularly bothered to do so is Gerbick, and ask for you to point out where I have done anything that is against the Flashkit rules?Quote:
No, As I have stated before, follow the rules, that's from me to you, a SuperModerator to a Member.
You don't like my point of view? Cool, I don't care, there are many people's points of view on this board I don't like, but I don't lose any sleep over it and it's not against the rules to hold a point of view someone doesn't like. Howver as for following/breaking rules, well that should be fairly easy to show.
I added a comment as satire in my footer (not concerned who found it funny or not, but very clearly satire) which was amended when requested. So apart from that - and that was well after the blow up in this thread - I would really, dearly love you to direct my attention to where I have broken Flashkit rules? I could have a field day doing it from a few comments directed at me in this thread if you would desire, but let's just start with you backing up your claim first. It's called evidence, something a Highway Patrol Officer also has to produce. And it's even easier here, it's all in writing, so no "my word against your word" scenario.
-----
Is kind of reminding my of a Dilbert cartoon at the moment:
Dilbert: "Don't lax gun laws result in more deaths?"
Manager 1: "US basher"
Manager 2: "Why you little "*!*£$%$£"%^^&!!!"
Manager 3: "Turd!"
Manager 3: "Okay Dilbert, you're out of here for breaking the rules!"
You're forgetting to factor in other variables of owning a license... such as drunk driving. Or driving under the influence of drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Having a license to a gun - which I went to classes in three states, licensed in three states, paid fees in three states all due to moving around - does not equate control upfront.
It just starts the knowledge process. Then it's up to the individual to be responsible.
As it stands, a criminal will not be "responsible"... they will do basically what criminals do. Same for the insane.
In the case of the Virginia Tech shootings, that's clearly a madman if you've seen his video diatribes.
Gun control as it stands in the US is a bad subject. The Federal laws layout a framework. The states implement that framework and can augment rules within that framework. If there's a suggested waiting period between application to buy a gun and when you can actually own it, the state will say that 72 hours is ok. Or it might say 7 days. Or the state might declare there's no waiting period with proper identification.
Virginia has "lax" gun laws. But in this case, the guns were purchased last month. So a waiting period would not have solved anything. It would not have delayed this waiting time bomb.
It just prolonged this years ongoing process of creating this person into what he became.
The amount of restrictions on guns in the US is higher now than ever. Yet, gun laws are the first to come into blame. The problem is lower than that. Washington DC outlawed guns... but still they exist there.
Gun laws in Australia are tough... but they don't exactly stop crime.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/armed_robbery.jpg
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/robbery.jpg
Nor does it stop armed robbery/shootings. It may just limit the ability for immediately escalated violence involving guns.
What are you being accused of... be specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
It's quite funny that you're being "accused" of something, yet not specific in what it was; yet you continue to drag my name into things when I've not addressed you for over two pages.
First the footer, now this post.
So be specific.
I've done no such thing. I'm addressing you because my name was used in your post; therefore denoting that I'm somewhere in the audience/direction of this post.Quote:
You'll have to point me to the part where Mods are allowed to abuse and name call someone to enforce their position.
You misspelled "However"... sorry. Old habits die hard.Quote:
Howver as for following/breaking rules, well that should be fairly easy to show.
Satire is one thing. You've taken my verbiage and deflected it to being used for a non-argument that's remained quite circular and hasn't added to anything in the thread. I didn't resort to placing you in my footer; when honestly I didn't expand upon the truth as you taken the liberty of doing so.Quote:
I added a comment as satire in my footer (not concerned who found it funny or not, but very clearly satire) which was amended when requested.
And you're the one that once reported an user for using your name once in a thread in a manner that you did not like. I simply requested that you remove my name; which you did. Without an apology, nor explanation until now.Quote:
I would really, dearly love you to direct my attention to where I have broken Flashkit rules?
Satire is usually funny. Not unless you're the modern Saturday Night Live cast.
Same for you too buddy boy.Quote:
...you backing up your claim first. It's called evidence, something a Highway Patrol Officer also has to produce. And it's even easier here, it's all in writing, so no "my word against your word" scenario.
I never said anything about "US Hate"... in fact, it wasn't a factor until your post.
Here's my original post:
Please point out where I said "US Hate"... as you decided to point out in your post where you quoted me and stated as such:Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Emphasis is mine. I didn't say "US hate". Yet you quoted me and used it... first time in the thread really.Quote:
You've just made your point very well.
I don't see anyone making any suggestions they hate the US. I don't see anyone balking at discussing any issues in their own countries. All I did see (before the usual defensive posturing) was a discussion about an issue that was very relevant due to an unfortunate recent event in the US.
Next time we have some event in Australia that could have been influenced by something - and that anyone here is actually interested in discussing - you'll find me all ears, and not taking any offense at anyone's researched ideas or suggestions, even if they oppose mine (which, if critical of the Australian government, is highly unlikely).
Actually gerbick, this time you can take credit: Until your post (closely followed by EVPohovich's) I thought this discussion about a very passionate and controversial issue was proceeding very civilly, despite people's differing and sometimes opposing viewpoints. Well done old chap!
Please don't introduce that manner of argument and display it "back" to me when I never said it... and you've yet to specify why you quoted me and said that.
As it stands, you remain that liar that I stated earlier. I never said it and I've remained quite civil; yet you continue to use my name in your footer, and in posts after I've stopped responding to you.
And here's my official request: Please stop it. I find it nigh-harassment. And by definition, harassment is unwanted attention. Please refrain from using my name in a manner that is not befitting of what I've stated.
And if you don't agree with that, that's pretty much a paraphrase of when you complained about Tony - XU1 - using your name once before.
Thank you in advance, have a good day old chap.
fixed to show the cartoon but i used our discussion here.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
http://www.drudge.com/news/93463/sel...itzerland#more
i do believe thats checkmate.
Oh come on silverx2. I was finally going to stop debating about this issue, as I don't see it will come to and end anywhere. Still, you try to make fun of other people here. If we should discuss an issue like this, shouldn't I use statistics? In this case, saying what you think obviously isn't enough. So if I shouldn't point to statistics or say what I think, what should I do then? Find some celebrity quotes?
I could have added several lines in your cartoon, but I won't lower myself to that level.
so you have nothing to say about the swiss all having automatic weapons and the lowest amount of crime?
Or you still haven't got any suggestions on other reasons to the american rates?
I don't think firearms is the only factor. Factors like mental health care, amount of ethnic groups and cultures etc. probably are parts of the reason, but I think that the amount of guns (especially combined with other factors) have something to say.
In this debate I have said my opinion, and nothing is going to change that. Neither does it seems that you will change yours. But what you should do is to come with some explanations yourself instead of just criticize others.
your not listening.
Places where you can easily get guns have less crime then places where it is hard to get guns.
the reason being is people will not commit crimes against other people when the other people will shoot them.
its simple logic.
crime goes up in places where you can not get guns because people are not able to defend themselves against other people
if i walk in to a store with a hand gun, im going to be able to rob that store.
if i walk into a store with a hand gun, and the person behind the counter has a gun, and the guy grabbing a soda has a gun, and the girl reading the magazines also has a gun, there is a good chance im gonna get shot if i try and rob that store.
how hard is it to understand that.
Whatever the reason is, it's not that easy... Still, you haven't given any suggestions about the high rates in the US. I have asked 4-5 times...
i HAVE given you reasons.
Illegal weapons brought INTO the country by people from south america.
Gun laws that are TOO strict
BAD Parenting
POOR community awareness
GANG warfare
untill you can give statistics that show how many LEGAL guns are used in crimes/murders your argument is worth about nothing. You cant lump the united states as if it was one entitey, we are made up of differnt states with differnt laws, governed using the same bill of rights for everybody.
now tell me why the swiss have such a low crime rate, while maintaing giving every buddy automatic weapons.
I think Switzerland isn't as multicultural as America, and haven't got the same amounts of social problems. There are probably other factors as well, but I don't know that much about their politics...
Still, the focus is on Canada and Switzerland, which has high gun rates, but low murder rates. There are many other countries that have strict gun politics, but still much less crime than the US. Could you explain why it is like that?
Illegal weapons brought INTO the country by people from south america(highest amounts of firearm murders).
Gun laws that are TOO strict
BAD Parenting
POOR community awareness
GANG warfare
So other countries doesn't have any problems with those factors?
It would seem that most of the guns Owened by the swiss are kept after miltary service and are stored at home.
To be able to carry a gun (on the streets) you have to have a permit, which it would seem is hard to get..
" stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger "
" passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon "
Also the permit only last 5 years...
does that help?
Wiki
how many illegal weapons are used in the crime for the us.