oaksoft Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 (edited) Who's telling you that - the voices in your head? That really is just about the most paranoid statement I've seen posted on this site! **************** All you've provided is a vague factoid about murder rates in the US over a number of years - and you've ignored my questions about it's validity. Then you've trotted out your Walmart mantra which is just the sort of unsubstantiated leap you're accusing everyone else of making, only in your case it's worse because you lack the precisely quantified and tested theories the scientific principles entail. RealLifeTM is not a hard science. Starting from this initial mistake, much of what you say is wrong. Not just wrong, but embarrassing and stupid. In your head I bet you thought this sounded brilliant as an argument. Written down ..... not so much..... Here's the point. When you are suggesting changes as important as these, the onus is on YOU to provide properly researched proof that your solution has a better than reasonable chance of working. It would also be good if you could handle reasonable criticism of that idea because frankly it's brainless. If you remove legally owned guns you will push it underground. We have literally decades of evidence linking banning things with an increase in organised crime because apparently criminals don't fancy playing ball with the rest of society. Guns, drugs, alcohol (during the Prohibition). All of them controlled by organised criminals because they were banned. Does that sound like progress to you? Because it sounds absolutely f**king brainless to me. Edited June 18, 2016 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36566635 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 In your head I bet you thought this sounded brilliant as an argument. Written down ..... not so much..... Here's the point. When you are suggesting changes as important as these, the onus is on YOU to provide properly researched proof that your solution has a better than reasonable chance of working. It would also be good if you could handle reasonable criticism of that idea because frankly it's brainless. If you remove legally owned guns you will push it underground. We have literally decades of evidence linking banning things with an increase in organised crime because apparently criminals don't fancy playing ball with the rest of society. Guns, drugs, alcohol (during the Prohibition). All of them controlled by organised criminals because they were banned. Does that sound like progress to you? Because it sounds absolutely f**king brainless to me. We're going round in circles here but I'll repeat a few points - 1. Being a scientist (could you be more vague?) doesn't give you any greater insight into issues outwith your field than the rest of us. 2. Speaking as someone with a Degree in Chemistry, a Masters Degree in Software Engineering and over 10 years work experience as an Analytical Chemist before I changed career I say that your argument lacks the scientific rigour you claim and that you're just as guilty as anyone in this thread of making irrelevant and unsubstantiated leaps in this debate. Your opinion is different from mine, I can handle that. The difference between us is that I'm not labouring under the misapprehension that I'm the smartest person on the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr rotund Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 This kind of thing can happen anywhere at any time regardless of your position on gun laws. The guy was a lunatic and that's why he killed those people, so we should ban lunatics who like to kill people, not realistic, neither is trying to control guns in such a vast country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 This kind of thing can happen anywhere at any time regardless of your position on gun laws. The guy was a lunatic and that's why he killed those people, so we should ban lunatics who like to kill people, not realistic, neither is trying to control guns in such a vast country. Especially a vast country which borders Mexico, and that doesn't have a big wall separating the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Here's an interesting statistic. In Mexico they have gun laws very similar to our own here in the UK. Yet in Mexico there are 6.34 firearm related homicides to every 100,000 people. In the USA there are just 3.43 firearm related homicides per 100,000. Do they need laws like they have in Mexico? Or do they just need a big wall to keep those mad Mexicans out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Especially a vast country which borders Mexico, and that doesn't have a big wall separating the two. Just in case anyone needed further proof that Dickson is an attention seeking troll... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Just in case anyone needed further proof that Dickson is an attention seeking troll... It's a valid point. The US can't keep Mexicans out of their country. If they can't stop people crossing how they f**k are they going to stop gun trafficking from a country which is supposed to have better gun controls but which has a much higher gunfire homicide rate than the US? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) We're going round in circles here but I'll repeat a few points - 1. Being a scientist (could you be more vague?) doesn't give you any greater insight into issues outwith your field than the rest of us. 2. Speaking as someone with a Degree in Chemistry, a Masters Degree in Software Engineering and over 10 years work experience as an Analytical Chemist before I changed career I say that your argument lacks the scientific rigour you claim and that you're just as guilty as anyone in this thread of making irrelevant and unsubstantiated leaps in this debate. Your opinion is different from mine, I can handle that. The difference between us is that I'm not labouring under the misapprehension that I'm the smartest person on the site. FFS bud why cant you just accept that people have different views to you and that some have strongly held views?That last sentence of yours is pathetic. Either debate the issue or piss off to another thread. How is it humanely possible for an adult to get as annoyed as you over someones viewpoint. Seriously, why do you care what I think of you or anyone else to the point where you post this sort of petulant pish LOL. Edited June 19, 2016 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Chicago. Again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36570893 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Hilarious response. Harry Stanley was shot by two men in cold blood in broad daylight on a London street. These two men were actually employed to protect people like Harry , not murder them in cold blood . Maybe after the ones that did Blair Peach got away with murder they just assumed it was a free for all. . You like to shoot your mouth off about how another country , 3500 miles away has a constitution that you feel is inappropriate , maybe you should be more aware of the failings in this country . . The use of the puerile smiley in this instance is inappropriate even by your standards , Robert . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) Harry Stanley was shot by two men in cold blood in broad daylight on a London street. These two men were actually employed to protect people like Harry , not murder them in cold blood . Maybe after the ones that did Blair Peach got away with murder they just assumed it was a free for all. . You like to shoot your mouth off about how another country , 3500 miles away has a constitution that you feel is inappropriate , maybe you should be more aware of the failings in this country . . The use of the puerile smiley in this instance is inappropriate even by your standards , Robert . . You dismiss anybody that disagrees, and you continually bring, by comparison, minor incidents into focus when they are a blip in comparison to the many major incident in America. As for the smilies, well they say more than words sometime. Away and don't take yourself so seriously, it doesn't become you, we already have a resident know it all. Edited June 19, 2016 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 You dismiss anybody that disagrees, and you continually bring, by comparison, minor incidents into focus when they are a blip in comparison to the many major incident in America. As for the smilies, well they say more than words sometime. Away and don't take yourself so seriously, it doesn't become you, we already have a resident know it all. Evening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Evening Watch out, this is a smillie free zone............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) FFS bud why cant you just accept that people have different views to you and that some have strongly held views? That last sentence of yours is pathetic. Either debate the issue or piss off to another thread. How is it humanely possible for an adult to get as annoyed as you over someones viewpoint. Seriously, why do you care what I think of you or anyone else to the point where you post this sort of petulant pish LOL. Interesting interpretation - individual, idiosyncratic, inflamed, irate, incensed, idiotic............ Edited June 20, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Stupid Americans, what do they know...................some forum members know better. The NRA is hosting their annual convention in Louisville this weekend, and they planned on touting the passage of their dangerous “guns everywhere” agenda here in Kentucky. But thanks to supporters like you, along with moms and volunteers from across Kentucky, our movement helped defeat every one of their reckless proposals to undermine Kentucky’s public safety laws. So now, on the same weekend the gun extremists gather for their convention, Kentucky moms and volunteers are hosting a special screening of Under the Gun — the film the gun lobby doesn’t want you to see. It’s an emotional documentary exploring the impact of gun violence in America, highlighting how the gun lobby’s out-of-touch agenda threatens public safety in communities across the country. And I want you to join us at our screening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 On 20 June 2016 at 9:35 AM, Bud the Baker said: Interesting interpretation - individual, idiosyncratic, inflamed, irate, incensed, idiotic............ TBH I am still cringing for you after your last post which lists your CV. Software Engineering? WTF does that have to do with science? And imagine bringing up a career in analytical chemistry as an example of being a scientist. Its barely a technician role really. How hard is it to sit at the end of a GCMS or an HPLC and compare the picture of what comes out with a picture on the wall of what is desired. Yes I am aware of the sort of job analytical chemists do in industry. Helps to know a few...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 it seems more politicians feel easy access to guns is an issue. what do they, and all the families of innocent people, know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 6 hours ago, oaksoft said: TBH I am still cringing for you after your last post which lists your CV. Software Engineering? WTF does that have to do with science? And imagine bringing up a career in analytical chemistry as an example of being a scientist. Its barely a technician role really. How hard is it to sit at the end of a GCMS or an HPLC and compare the picture of what comes out with a picture on the wall of what is desired. Yes I am aware of the sort of job analytical chemists do in industry. Helps to know a few...... Quality trashtalk - you must be so proud! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Bud the Baker said: Quality trashtalk - you must be so proud! If you dont like it maybe you shouldnt be so quick to jump on me next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, oaksoft said: If you dont like it maybe you shouldnt be so quick to jump on me next time. Q. When is a winner not a winner? A. When he's a self-declared internet winner. ************ I'm quite happy to get down and dirty with you, squabbles like these are the lifeblood of the forum and keep everyone amused. Edited June 23, 2016 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 On 17/06/2016 at 3:00 PM, faraway saint said: Love to see you stand in front of these families and tell them that. Similarly , you could nip around to the family of Harry Stanley and tell them that he was murdered in a "minor incident" as far as you are concerned . His family were bitterly disappointed about the final verdict , on the case , so maybe you better take a couple of Bizzies with you. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 10 hours ago, Bud the Baker said: Q. When is a winner not a winner? A. When he's a self-declared internet winner. ************ I'm quite happy to get down and dirty with you, squabbles like these are the lifeblood of the forum and keep everyone amused. Oh I agree entirely with that last sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 10 hours ago, saintnextlifetime said: Similarly , you could nip around to the family of Harry Stanley and tell them that he was murdered in a "minor incident" as far as you are concerned . His family were bitterly disappointed about the final verdict , on the case , so maybe you better take a couple of Bizzies with you. . Aye, take it out of context, that always wins, in Silly Billy land. Run along, point proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.