|
Post by Snowfeather on Jan 26, 2013 23:17:18 GMT -5
Instead of hogging up the chat box why not just talk about this in a thread? So I have a few political questions (most were talked about in the chat box) Just a quick small rule go over before we start - If anyone has a different view then you do relax,It's their option.
- Of course no swearing
- Free to add your own questions
- Free to agree to disagree (no judging)
- You can skip any question you don't want to answer
- Admin's rules
Ok let's start Here are some main one's I like to talk about if you want to answer them please put the question in bold then your answer as you would. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What do you think about a gun ban?It's not a good idea to ban guns.You always need something to defend yourself.Banning guns is going to prevent you from doing that and you know like any other law everyone's going to find a way to get past it. Even if it is banned that doesn't mean everyone's just going to agree with it. Doesn't matter who made it,President Goverment. No.Your going to find some way around it you want to defend yourself and your family.What if there's a murderer around your city and they enter your house what are you going to do? you NEED something to defend yourself a little kitchen knife isn't going to work (and who says you have enough time to get there anyways?) A gun banning law would be made to decrease violence but really all it's going to do is put stress on the people and create more "going behind the law acts" and EVEN MORE VIOLENCE.Example: If someone is forced to follow it and it get's into the wrong ears (murderers maybe) and they know you have no way of stopping them (even the fastest cop cars won't get there in time) then your a main target.Do you really think that just because a laws made then everyone's going to get rid of there prime source of protection? people are still going to sell it secretly millions of that source have already happened. I'm all for peace but if I had a choice I would keep a few guns. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't have time right now to make another Question (and any spelling errors will be done tomorrow) If you have any questions you would like to talk about please say them (but don't answer them yet please just write them in bold) -keeping these hear so I don't loose track of them www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/13/us-usa-guns-congress-idUSBRE90C0DK20130113www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wynne-makes-history-as-first-openly-gay-premier-in-canada/article7894440/www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wynne-makes-history-as-first-openly-gay-premier-in-canada/article7894440/newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/24/royal-succession-rules-could-soon-change/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------------------- Current Chat------------------ Pitbull ban With:None Against: Dog fights (pitbulls)With:None Against:
|
|
|
Post by Mod Blackbolt on Jan 26, 2013 23:50:30 GMT -5
I personally would have to disagree with you on this one
1. "You always need something to defend yourself" - In Canada we are allowed to have guns in a similar fashion to how it is currently set up in the U.S. First the gun ban does not account for pistols and so only a small amount of guns would be taken off the market. (Most Americans use pistols to defend themselves on the go in their handbag or purse so this would not effect them) The gun ban only accounts for guns like that of the aurora movie theater shooting which was an Acr with a 90 round clip (in comparison U.S. soldiers use a 60 round clip in combat), as far as i know the law has not been expanded to contain a ban of pistols (please let me know if this changes, with article proof and i will retract my statement).
2. "A gun banning law would be made to decrease violence but really all it's going to do is put stress on the people and create more "going behind the law acts" and EVEN MORE VIOLENCE." - Less guns on the market means less gun related crimes which is the point of the law, even if it causes people to act out the fact that there are less guns on the market (and keep in mind these guns they are going after are ones that can take out a crowd of people without reloading once) means that many people trying to act out or commit a crime simply will not be able to get their hands on a gun and even if they do it will not be one able to cause a massacre such as that of the Aurora movie theater shooting.
3. "If someone is forced to follow it and it get's into the wrong ears (murderers maybe) and they know you have no way of stopping them (even the fastest cop cars won't get there in time) then your a main target." - If there are less guns on the market chances are the potential murderer will be attacking you with something other then a gun (and if so it will be a pistol which greatly increases your chances of survival compared to something like a shotgun or machine gun.....) also there are plenty of other items that you can use to defend yourself, the fact that many think of guns for defense as soon as the topic is brought up is disturbing.
4. "people are still going to sell it secretly millions of that source have already happened" - Since the law is not in force we do not know how they intend to enforce the law. And since this only effects a small portion of the guns on the market i think it will work very effectively on them. Granted there will still be murders with these weapons but every murder one more (perhaps multiple) will be taken off the market and eventually the demand will be more then the supply can provide for, especially if it is restricted to those who register there guns (or there is an outright ban on them).
I am also going to take the time to take a shot at the constitution. The second amendment was created at the time of Americas Independence from Britain, then it applied to there everyday life as they needed something to protect themselves from the British. It applied greatly to the everyday life of people living 222 years ago (when it was adopted with the rest of the bill of rights) as they needed to protect their land. Now not so much....... The fact that there is even a right to bear arms in the constitution is ridiculous and does not apply to everyday life today. Lets look at Luxembourg, one of the richest countries in the world, there is a fierce debate over if their police officers should be able to carry guns, let alone citizens. They are doing just fine without guns, why can't the U.S?
|
|
|
Post by piplup10036 on Jan 27, 2013 2:10:59 GMT -5
I think gun control is bull crap, every watch penn and teller before? They did a great video on the situation. here it is: ( Warning, its a little explict) www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs
|
|
|
Post by Mod Blackbolt on Jan 27, 2013 11:39:43 GMT -5
Someone in the video's comments summed up my argument perfectly
"Higher rate of fire + bigger clip size = potential higher loss of life. slower rate of fire + small clip size = potentially halving the casualities. Gun control makes me feel better because I know it works. It's not an easy thing to implement, but it certainly works. The U.K are a prime example."
|
|
|
Post by Snowfeather on Jan 27, 2013 19:17:07 GMT -5
1.Pistols are small (ish) and very effective including firing fast (with makes it a good gun for protection.The government knows that,and it's probably going to be the first thing they want america's to hand over.We deserve to have something we can use in that time of need I'm not saying that everyone just has one to kill it's the final move of the time of the worst and nobody has a right to take it away.The government of course knows that people are still going to have guns behind there backs (guns are easy to hide (mostly) because of there small size and weight) which could possibly issue out a searching of house to house (but rare chance as it would be a dictatorship and might cause a upset in the people) if it's known that you have such a weapon
2.It will cost a lot but even if the guns are taken off the market what about the ones already sold? There are millions of weapons still out and would be a good source of money to sell if you have extras (that means pistols or the the big guns) as the government can't see the purchase as it doesn't include buying at any store (hence going behind the law for the good if it's a pistol to protect someone or yourself but if it's a BIG gun then there's no reason to buy it unless your planning on taking out a bunch of people which then shouldn't be sold) I would rather pistols stay on the market and the big local guns are taken off.
A have a few military things to add in but that can wait until I do the next question (and an explain of the quoted line)
3.Guns really are not TOO disturbing (but still it just not as much as a knife (taking about the P) as they are a prime use of protection,whats more disturbing to think about are knifes that way is more of a gore/murder and (not trying to put the thought into peoples heads as I don't like talking about it) the worst way to kill.Taking a big gun into a point like that for a person should not be allowed I agree with you one that one (unless your the one defending but still is a over use) And who says you have time to get a "other weapon" pistols are a good way of defending yourself (but ONLY if you NEED it) but of course as everything else there's someone who wants to use it the wrong.
4.A law like that shouldn't happen at all if they put in effect the people who make them loose their jobs (both living in america and any other imports we have coming in from other places,well maybe the ones just made here will be most effective) and once again putting more damage on the unemployment rate.And the rest I already said ^
right we needed that to protect our land but we still need it to protect our self's (No matter where violence will never end) Everyday life (as back then) still includes the bad people your right that it's less now but it's still something that could happen and doesn't have a low rate of not happening.
We should have a right to bear arms and nobody has a right to take that away you never know what is going to happen and if something as bad as said above comes across you it would be a good idea to have a gun (not the big kind)
Do you know if the Luxembourg have a right for the cops to carry tasers? If there taking away weapons for the cops period then that's a bad idea You can't take down someone with a weapon using just hands and as every place in the world there is violence and us the US should have a right to bare guns
And as said before guns ONLY need to be used if you need it (correct me if I'm wrong at anything here I'm not the best at this)
(sorry it takes me forever to type things like this)
|
|
|
Post by Mod Blackbolt on Jan 27, 2013 19:42:47 GMT -5
The problem with saying "they only need to be used if needed" is that you are not accounting for mentally disturbed or insane people who only get a gun with an intent to do crime. I never carried a gun and i go to some pretty dangerous places in Toronto (Jane and Finch comes to mind), never needed a gun and never will. The fact that people need to have them to feel safe is a reason why gun crimes and death by guns are so common.
1. So far the only ones they want to take away are the big 90 round clip guns or others like that. If that changes there will be an even bigger outcry from people.
2. Yes there will still be guns on the market and there will still be crimes however every crime another gun will be taken off the market (which i mentioned earlier) and if there is an embargo on guns coming into the country it will eventually become very hard to get them.
3. Guns are very disturbing, personally if i where down in the U.S. and i saw people walking around with guns i would be more concerned with my safety then i would be if they did not have them.
4. Would you rather have a higher unemployment rate or more deaths because of guns? Personally if it came to choosing between a school shooting massacre or a theater shooting massacre and a few more people who are unemployed i would choose the latter.
Luxembourg does just fine without guns, they have a low crime rate when it comes to assault with weapons and most of their crime is theivery. (In that case someone tackling the thief is just as good as shooting them and does not require loss of life)
|
|
|
Post by Snowfeather on Jan 27, 2013 21:07:12 GMT -5
How about a law where if you are dubbed "mentally insane or disturbed" Then you could have your guns removed besides if they now that then your probably going to be in jail therefore not needing your gun.I have been to a few dangerous places to I'm not saying you should carry a gun everywhere you go but keep it say somewhere safe (like at your house) then use it when you need it (anytime something like that could happen) 1.I'm fine with that kind of gun being outlawed you go with a pistol not a huge gun to take out a group of people that says something bad. 2.I don't think EVERY single gun would be taken of the market even the president has to have a little sense not to do that.The big guns ok I see the bad to that you don't need a huge gun for protection,a small/medium would be a little more necessary.As long as they don't take them off I'm good,if an embargo does come in the people that already have them probably won't be willing to give them up. 3.People just don't put them in their bag everywhere they go,they have them at there homes,why take it everywhere? being around more people is safer.I mentioned knifes because they are much more gore related then guns you get stabbed again again by knifes not just shot once or twice. 4.I wasn't saying if i rather have one of the two,I would go with the first one if I had to choose.I would never want anymore deaths. ^ the other part already said above. Well your comparing Luxembourg to the USA as they do have the same problems (some) but the US is more then 100x bigger then it. so of course they would have a lower crime rate (and even less people=even less murders (ntbr) and if a thief time does happen you could tackle them but you would have to do it fast and quick when there not looking (if they see you will most likely get shot)
|
|
|
Post by Mod Blackbolt on Jan 27, 2013 21:36:48 GMT -5
Canada is bigger then the U.S. and it has lower crimes.
However to be able to accurately compare these countries we need to look at the rate of crime per person.
Lets take a look at rate of homocides per 100,000 people
In 2000 Canada had 1.8 homocides per 100,000 people in the U.S. there where 5.5 homocides per 100,000 people.
Now lets look at robbery in 2000, the rate of robbery in the U.S. was 65% higher then that of Canadas. 41% of the robberies in the U.S. involved a firearm where as only 16% in Canada. These are from 2 countries with very similar gun laws.
Edit - in your picture Alaska is not highlighted....
|
|
|
Post by Snowfeather on Jan 27, 2013 22:19:07 GMT -5
Adding another. WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL BE THE BEST SOURCE OF ENERGY FOR POWERING CARS AND OTHER WIDE ELECTRICAL AREAS?Gas works but it damages to much.Is it harmful to the environment to the animals and even humans.Gas power has given us the power to drive cars,power tools,Add factory's to our land and many more. But that has come with a huge price.Gas pollutes the earth And can easy turn this river Into a watery trashcan With just one pipe added.It kills anything in it and steals the life from the surface to the bottom.Fish on floating on the surface dead is that really something that you want to see? sounds horrible to me.It cost a lot too. Back in the day it was 8 cents (about 40 years ago) Now around 4.00-7.00 (where i am it's about 3.80-4.50) Were running out of it fast but truly what do you think is the best use of energy? You can give your view on both sides. wind power Goodside:Wind power is clean. It - Doesn't take to much space
- It's safe
- Doesn't use electric power or any harmful polluting source's
Wind power is a good source of energy It doesn't use a hole lot of space and it's high enough so it won't hurt us (spinning arms) it takes the power of the wind and converts it into our energy to power homes and other places (not to sure about cars) but.... Badside:Being so high it can hurt any birds migrating If they are put in the wrong place a more likely place to put it would be in the oceans It is close to the water but above it.Fish cannot be hurt with the arms so high and the farther you get in the ocean there are less birds.BUT it takes longer to build in such deeps and if something goes wrong it's REALLY hard to fix it not to mention rusting. Then here goes the sound. milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityGreenTeam/documents/SoundScale.png -to large to fit For one it's not much.But for hundreds it's extremely damaging to ears not to mention living in a wind farm hearing them everyday. water power will be added but what do you think about wind power? is it worse or better then gas?
|
|
|
Post by Snowfeather on Jan 31, 2013 16:54:06 GMT -5
(the other post was already talk about,any other questions are helpful)
|
|
|
Post by Wolfstar on Jan 31, 2013 17:47:52 GMT -5
(this isn't really a question)
Energy, there's gas, oil, ect. I know that there isn't an unlimited use of it, and it can kill the environment (oil spills). Why not use a natural supply of energy. Just like Snowfeather said, there is Wind power, Solar power, ect. (I don't know if there is water power)
(Now this is something I want to ask)
Why can't people recycle more? There aren't many people that recycle.
|
|
|
Post by Mod Blackbolt on Jan 31, 2013 18:43:33 GMT -5
In Canada we have mandatory blue bins, i see a lot of people recycling. If you do not mind me asking, where are you from? Also yes there is water energy. (Called Hydropower, think mills, dams and that sort)
|
|
|
Post by Snowfeather on Jan 31, 2013 19:48:55 GMT -5
(not a good question?) Because people don't freaking take the time to sort I'm all about it. It's easy. Hydro power like this It takes up pretty much the hole stream or river and yes like a dam and completely stops fish from going anywhere (and are killed if they go into system) It's better then oil and hurts but not as much as the oil would do. I don't think solar power has anything wrong with it Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by piplup10036 on Jan 31, 2013 20:18:56 GMT -5
Wind power + Solar power= set for life, when its not sunny out, its windy, when its not windy, its sunny.
|
|
|
Post by Mod Blackbolt on Jan 31, 2013 20:28:15 GMT -5
Wind power can kill birds, solar power if not installed correctly can fall off.
|
|
|
Post by Dawnsky on Jan 31, 2013 21:01:04 GMT -5
In my opinion, solar and wind power would be the best combo espescially if we put the turbines in the ocean. I've actually heard of turbines that also make energy from hydropower: the part that is under water in the ocean generates electricity when the water flows back and forth because of the tide. The only main drawbacks to solar (as far as I know) is that the panals are really expensive and it breaks somewhat easily.
|
|
|
Post by Mod Blackbolt on Jan 31, 2013 21:04:39 GMT -5
The panels break easily if they are not installed and cared for properly (my father is in the solar panel business actually). Ideally solar and wind are the best combo, however using these two in a large enough quantity to supply our needs would take up quite a bit of space (more so for the wind turbines which is why putting them in the ocean sounds excellent).
|
|
|
Post by Snowfeather on Feb 1, 2013 11:38:12 GMT -5
But what if they are installed right? every product isn't perfect.Say if you could put the wind in the ocean (to the higher up right of Canada and lower right of south america look the best) And how about solar in less populated deserts (no animals) No rain or hail to damage it and monthly test on it.
Instead of using the money to import oil use it to buy panels once we are forced to switch
|
|
|
Post by Mod Blackbolt on Feb 1, 2013 11:59:25 GMT -5
No product is perfect but if a solar panel is installed correctly it comes pretty close. Either way i am against the use of oil but at this point in time i cannot see my country without it, yes we are running our biggest deficit in history, however that is mostly due to an incompetent prime minister. Oil is a good source of income for our country (we have the second most oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia) and especially for Alberta. Oil is one of the key reasons why we are doing better then the U.S. and have been able to weather the recession fairly well.
|
|
|
Post by Snowfeather on Feb 1, 2013 12:48:49 GMT -5
Same here but oil HAS brought something good,where would we be without cars? Instead of driving you would have to walk everywhere then if you happened to buy anything carry it back.
Oil is being used up fast and I'm sure when I'm old enough to get a car (in like 5 years) and the gas is around 7 dollars I have no clue what I'm going to do and a bunch of other's to we need to get more wind/solar power out there
Gotta agree with what pip said when there's no wind there's sun no sun there's wind.Out in the ocean would be the best for wind (Don't think many birds would go out in the middle of the ocean) and solar in deserts.There would also bring more jobs open to people as we need monthly check ups on each solar panel and turbine.
Then again what comes with the non use of oil what do you guys think would happen?
|
|