Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / [LOCKED] North America vs. Europe

Author
Message
Ron Erickson
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 17:18
Link
Quote: "If it was a knife or a screwdriver, chances are he would have been overpowered soon enough (possibly even by his first potential victim) whereas since he had a gun all of his victims were practically helpless."


I agree that it would be easier to subdue a person with a knife than a gun. I get that point. But, if a person had absolutely no access to any guns and wanted to kill a bunch of people, what would stop that person from making his own bombs? Anyone can do that with very little research. The materials are readily available, cheap and legal (unless you want to ban pipe). More damage could be done to more people in less time. Again, it isn't the gun that is dangerous, it is the mind of the criminal.

Quote: "Who on earth would be stupid and irresponsible enough to let a child fire any kind of weapon, let alone an automatic?"

I would let my two older kids shoot guns (not automatic!) under my supervision. They are 10 and 8 years old. My youngest, 6, is probably a bit too small yet. I have not taken them shooting yet because I'd rather wait until I can bring all three of them. The two oldest both have their own bow and arrows. They shoot them under my supervision. They also both have airsoft guns and bb guns. They shoot them under my supervision. I started shooting at their age. My wife started shooting at their age. The biggest thing that I learned was respect for the power and dammage that the weapons could cause. A person that has been shooting since they were small is usually a LOT more careful with a weapon later in life than a older person that picks one up for the first time.

a.k.a WOLF!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 17:19 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 17:24
Link
Quote: "BigAdd, post our conversation as you said you were going to. I have nothing whatsoever to hide. "


I posted our conversation to the mod board (which is what I said I did). I didn't say anything about posting it in this thread. And if you have nothing to hide you wouldn't go back and edit out your posts.

I honestly suggest you drop this now and stop harassing me.

Back to top
Profile PM
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 17:46
Link
Quote: "I agree that it would be easier to subdue a person with a knife than a gun. I get that point. But, if a person had absolutely no access to any guns and wanted to kill a bunch of people, what would stop that person from making his own bombs? Anyone can do that with very little research. The materials are readily available, cheap and legal (unless you want to ban pipe). More damage could be done to more people in less time. Again, it isn't the gun that is dangerous, it is the mind of the criminal."


In this case, why aren't grenade launchers and automatic weapons legal to own over there?



Support a charitable indie game project!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ron Erickson
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 18:10
Link
Quote: "In this case, why aren't grenade launchers and automatic weapons legal to own over there?"


In most cases, I think the gun laws allow our police forces to be slightly better equipped than our legal gun owners. I have no problem with that. You don't think criminals have automatic weapons though? Making something illegal doesn't make it unavailable. It just creates a black market for the item.

Also, there is too much surrounding dammage that could be caused with either of those types of weapons to fully legalize them. I think the levels of accidental injury would be so GREATLY increased, that there is little justification that can be used for having them. There also isn't any "game" reason to have them either. Using a grenade launcher on a deer would pretty much destroy the meat.

a.k.a WOLF!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Kravenwolf
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2009
Location: Silent Hill
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 18:12 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 18:18
Link
Quote: "In this case, why aren't grenade launchers and automatic weapons legal to own over there?"


EDIT: Forgot the forum doesn't like direct google search links; Here you go.

EDIT #2: Sidenote: Patiently awaiting any other questions you may have regarding the comparison to firearms and automobiles

Kravenwolf

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 18:19
Link
I see these arguments about 'potential' you know the potential a gun has in being used as a murder weapon and of course, people could easily bring up a load of other 'potential' murder weapons that are everyday items. But it's not about the potential something has, but the effect it actually has in a society. It's a logistical nightmare to ban everything that has been used as a murder weapon or anything that could be used as one. Even banning guns is a logistical nightmare, however, refusing to loosen gun law isn't. In many countries there are tight guns laws that take away that civil liberty and it's not lifted on the grounds out of fear of a rise in violent crime, especially murder. When you look at the statistics, it's not so unreasonable because countries like the US and South Africa really suffer for violent crime. That's not to say the rest of the world is perfect, because it isn't. We still suffer.

I'll bring up the statistics when I return home, sadly, I've got a lift to catch.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Admiral MH
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Feb 2011
Location: TX, USA
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 18:49 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 19:16
Link
ModEdit

So basically I think the lack of morality is the major problem today.

Also mod's please don't lock this thread I like this debate.
Back to top
Profile PM
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 18:52 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 19:23
Link
Quote: "So basically I think the lack of morality is the major problem today."


MOD EDIT



Support a charitable indie game project!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Kravenwolf
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2009
Location: Silent Hill
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 18:54 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 18:59
Link
Quote: "it's not about the potential something has, but the effect it actually has in a society. "


Quote: "I'll bring up the statistics when I return home"


+1 Could not agree more. You have a lift to catch, so in the mean time; I'll start up the statistical analysis sheet for a little game of cause and effect


Cause:
Cigarette Smoking

Effect:

The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths each year in the United States.

More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.


Cause:
Alcohol

Effect:

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.

Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash about every 50 minutes in the U.S. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2010)





I gotta say, right now it seems to make the most sense to target cigarettes/tobacco, if the main area of concern behind this debate is human well-being. I would assume both sides on this argument can agree that both cigarettes and alcohol can be done away if need be, considering they are neither;

Quote: "something essential to everyday life (cars)"


or

Quote: "self-defense"



Anyway, awaiting for your criminal firearm murder death count, as well as incidental firearm deaths, as well as justified lethal force cases.



--------------------------------------------



Quote: "Also mod's please don't lock this thread I like this debate."


Best to stay away from religious banter, then.

Kravenwolf

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Admiral MH
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Feb 2011
Location: TX, USA
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 19:01 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 19:17
Link
ModEdit
Back to top
Profile PM
Kravenwolf
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2009
Location: Silent Hill
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 19:07 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 19:31
Link




...but this thread was soooo entertaining.



Removed.

Kravenwolf

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ron Erickson
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 19:17 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 19:22
Link
As much as I'd LOVE to get into another religous debate, it is banned here, so don't go there.

Warning has been issued. Locks, slaps, and bans will follow.

a.k.a WOLF!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 19:18
Link
AdmiralMH - I went ahead and removed your posts. I didn't want to, as you should be allowed equal right to express your opinion, but this discussion is heated enough already and bringing religion into the debate could tip us over the edge.

And ditto to what Ron has said.

Back to top
Profile PM
Gil Galvanti
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 19:24 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 19:25
Link
Removed since the preceding arguments were removed.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Kravenwolf
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2009
Location: Silent Hill
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 19:30 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 19:32
Link
Quote: "this discussion is heated enough already"


I prefer locked and loaded, thanks


EDIT: On a more serious note; removed my previous "uhggg" since the reason for said uhgg was removed.

Kravenwolf

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Admiral MH
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Feb 2011
Location: TX, USA
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 19:36
Link
Quote: "AdmiralMH - I went ahead and removed your posts. I didn't want to, as you should be allowed equal right to express your opinion, but this discussion is heated enough already and bringing religion into the debate could tip us over the edge."


All right I understand.


But I guess then why would this thread last so long if also debate about governments is banned as it says in AUP 3.8?

Quote: "3.8 Debate about any form of pro or anti government sentiments, irrespective of which government"
Back to top
Profile PM
Fatal Berserker
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 19:55
Link
because we arnt debating about a government...

Back to top
Profile PM
Slow Programmer
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2006
Location: USA, Tennessee
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 20:09
Link
Quote: "In this case, why aren't grenade launchers and automatic weapons legal to own over there?"


Grenade launchers are not firearms and automatic weapons are legal if you want to pay a tax to the government. I have a friend with two full-auto rifles. She shoots competitively with them. Yes, I said she.

There are two kinds of computer users. Those that use Macs and those that wish they did.
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 20:53 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 20:54
Link
Quote: "So you're saying removing something essential to everyday life (cars) is the same thing as removing lethal weapons designed to kill or maim?"


Your question is flawed, because there's no such thing as "removing lethal weapons". What I've said again and again is that it's impossible to simply remove all guns. Making a law and banning guns is about as effective as banning murder. Sure, it would make things easier if, once they banned a weapon, it ceased to exist within the country's borders. Having this fantasy of simply removing weapons to make a more peaceful society is incredibly flawed.


Senior Web Developer - Nokia
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Bootlicker
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 21:55
Link
Quote: "Your question is flawed, because there's no such thing as "removing lethal weapons". What I've said again and again is that it's impossible to simply remove all guns. Making a law and banning guns is about as effective as banning murder. Sure, it would make things easier if, once they banned a weapon, it ceased to exist within the country's borders. Having this fantasy of simply removing weapons to make a more peaceful society is incredibly flawed.
"


but it does make it much easier to catch criminals as items designed as lethal weapons would become illegal meaning that only criminals would posses them making arrest easier therefore less criminals on the streets. If they were banned crime rates would go down imo.


Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 22:13 Edited at: 14th Mar 2011 22:17
Link
Kravenwolf:

You talk about cigarettes and drinking. Yes, it is definitely a concern, especially with those numbers you've kicked out. As I've mentioned banning things can likely cause more problems than they solve. Hence I'm all for America keeping its gun laws. I think an attempt to ban alcohol or smoking would be futile, I think the emphasis should be put on methods of control and finding means of encouraging moderation. As often or not problems are caused not by drinking or smoking but drinking or smoking in excess. I'm a drinker, I've never ever drank myself to a state where I don't know what I'm doing or even doing damage to my own body. I've seen people almost hit by an oncoming vehicle, I've spoken to people who have lost a loved one because of a drink driver and I can recall the night I had to babysit a flatmate who was dragged home by the Police, whilst he wasn't much of a danger to other people (just verbal abuse to an old lady and police officers), he put himself in harm's way and I think to myself, "how can these people be that stupid?" And I understand that actually, a lot of people ARE that stupid and especially when it comes to drink driving, it becomes something to rant about. And whilst, yes, we are talking about gun crime, I agree that (drink driving especially) these are the bigger issues.

And again I don't believe in suddenly banning something, especially due to logistics, though smoking might be an easier goal as I don't think your average smoker is going to go to a dealer just to get a fix. Alcohol, well, didn't they try that one? And didn't it just increase organized crime? I think it'd be better to try and reduce the number of deaths via other means (I know, easier said than done), just as the US has to with gun crime. If say, the situation was, "should we make alcohol and tobacco legal?", then we might find ourselves down the road of saying, "we've lived all these years fine without it and it's not worth its dangers, so we're not going to legalise it". Just as we're in a position to say 'no' to legalising heroine or the possession of live grenade launchers for home security.

But anyway:

Statistics (including SA because I mentioned it earlier):
Murders with firearms:
South Africa - 1st Place - 31,918
US - 4th Place - 9,369
UK - 39th place - 14

Statistics (per capita, per 1000 people):
Murders:
SA - 2nd Place - 0.49
US - 24th Place - 0.042
UK - 46th Place - 0.014

Assaults:
SA - 2nd Place - 12.07
US - 6th Place - 7.56
UK - 8th Place - 7.45

Percentage of homicides involving a firearm:
SA - 2nd -59%
US - 7th -39%
UK - Not even on the list

It's very difficult to talk about statistics, because you're talking about correlating numbers, not necessarily how the numbers have been affected (like, exact reasons why the US and UK almost equal in assault, but the UK only has a third of the murders the US does). I find it interesting that there's a minuscule difference between the US and UK in terms of assaults, yet there's a big gap between murder and an even larger gap between murders involving a firearm (whilst that stat is not per capita, but the US population isn't more than 669 times the population of the UK). It's enough to raise the questions: What would happen if the UK were to relax gun law and encourage more people to purchase guns for personal safety? How would it effect violence crime? Also, how would the US be if it lacked its gun culture? Would there be fewer murders? To me, the statistics would certainly bring me to suggest making guns more legal could be a dangerous matter, especially if guns were a strong enough of a variable to triple murder to match the US. Though I understand, you can't exactly test it without doing it. And that's the difficulty when it comes to this sort of debate. But as we can see a massive difference in where guns are used to kill someone, I wouldn't consider it worth the risk.



Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

Back to top
Profile PM Website
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 22:19
Link
I notice a large amount of people starting to get mod edits, which leads me to believe this conversation is starting to derail as more people get upset. I still stick with my points that others have stated, if you get rid of guns, people are still going to find a way to get them, or they will use other means. You can EASILY find how to build bombs online, regardless of whether or not the government is "watching" you.

Here's the thing, gun-related deaths might go down a small percent, but you're also going to see an increase of beatings, stabbings, hit-and-run, etc. If one thing goes, another takes its place. I would MUCH rather have guns around, than seeing people carrying homemade napalm around. People just need to see that humans are violent in nature, and irrationality trumps all in the game of life.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 14th Mar 2011 22:28
Link
Quote: "Here's the thing, gun-related deaths might go down a small percent, but you're also going to see an increase of beatings, stabbings, hit-and-run, etc. If one thing goes, another takes its place. I would MUCH rather have guns around, than seeing people carrying homemade napalm around. People just need to see that humans are violent in nature, and irrationality trumps all in the game of life."


Aye, but the UK has a tiny number of deaths caused by firearms compared to the US, has a third of its murders per capita and almost equals for assaults. So you're just as likely to be assaulted in the UK as the US, but you're more likely to be murdered or shot (or both) in the US. Without trying to come off as a nationalistic douche bag (because I'm not the patriotic type) but I think on the account of murders, I'd feel safer in the UK, where far fewer people are in possession of a gun.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
kaedroho
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2007
Location: Oxford,UK
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 00:05 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 00:08
Link
Seppuku Arts, if someone murdered me. I would much rather be shot than stabbed or beaten. If you get shot a very loud noise will be heard so help will arrive more quickly, also the person trying to kill me would not shoot that many rounds as they will run out of ammo and will cause a lot of noise (so they will run away before someone sees them).

Stabbing and beating is quieter and can be done repeatedly without having to buy more ammo or cause a lot of noise.

Your signature has been erased by a mod please reduce it to no larger than 600 x 120.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Darth Kiwi
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 00:11
Link
Quote: "Here's the thing, gun-related deaths might go down a small percent, but you're also going to see an increase of beatings, stabbings, hit-and-run, etc. If one thing goes, another takes its place."


I don't think that people would start building napalm bombs if you banned guns. That's a really extreme concept. Plus, the UK isn't filled with crazy people carrying bombs all over the place.

But I do agree that banning guns in the US is not the way to go: it would be impossible to enforce, since nobody would abide by the ban.

Secretary of Unknowable Knowledge for the Rock/Dink administration '08
Back to top
Profile PM Email
lazerus
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2008
Location:
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 00:21 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 00:21
Link
Also i'm not sure if it's been mentioned but new UK legislations are cracking down on smoking, where shops now must have the cigerettes under the counter, out of sight and there is talk of plain packaging to stop it catching younger kids attention.

Gun vs Knife? Knife any day. Sure you can hear a gun but if i see them coming he has to get close to me with a knife while a gun is well yeah. You'll also have the fight/flight adrenaline so if hes not very skilled you have a better chance in a scuffle.


http://lazerus-reborn.deviantart.com/
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BatVink
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 00:45 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 00:46
Link
Quote: "Also i'm not sure if it's been mentioned but new UK legislations are cracking down on smoking, where shops now must have the cigerettes under the counter, out of sight and there is talk of plain packaging to stop it catching younger kids attention. "


That lead me to think we should do the same with banks...



Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fuzz
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Nov 2006
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 01:10
Link
How about we all talk about Australia? It's pretty cool here haha

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 01:32
Link
Well, now it's time for me to spark another debate. Why is it that people want to outlaw cigarettes but legalize weed? Makes no sense.

1. Weed has never killed anyone. This is a lie. A teenager who was driving high one night slammed into a mother and her baby. The mother died. Weed never killed anyone? Well, indirectly...

2. Weed is not as bad as alcohol. Alcohol does the same things as weed, only it can kill your liver. Smoking weed can kill your lungs. Call it a lesser evil if you will, but I think otherwise.

3. Weed isn't addictive. Wrong. Eric Roberts checked into Celebrity Rehab over his weed addiction. Sure, if you do it every now and then, like smoking, it doesn't really form a habit, but don't lie and say it's not addictive.

I can see the good uses for it, but generally those who support it are not in for the "goodness" over it, they simply want a high from it. For example, Montel Willaims doesn't get high on it for the hell of it, he has a problem that causes a lot of issues.

Anyway...flame on!

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
Back to top
Profile PM
Darth Kiwi
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Jan 2005
Location: On the brink of insanity.
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 01:38
Link
Hmm... I honestly don't know what to say to that. Part of me wants to argue that weed isn't any worse than cigarettes (I think - and I don't know much about it so please fill me in if this isn't the case) so it seems odd to make cigarettes legal and have weed illegal. But, part of me is not sure cigarettes should be legal anyway. But then part of me says that people should be free to do whatever they want to their bodies.

Hmm. I guess I can't do any better than "It's complicated!"

Secretary of Unknowable Knowledge for the Rock/Dink administration '08
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Kravenwolf
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2009
Location: Silent Hill
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 03:05 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 03:22
Link
Quote: "Also i'm not sure if it's been mentioned but new UK legislations are cracking down on smoking, where shops now must have the cigerettes under the counter, out of sight"


It's a good start; however, in relation to the concern for the number of firearm related deaths in the US; it's going to be as about as effective at lowering the death count for tobacco as keeping firearms locked in a store cabinet, and kept out of sight at home. To eliminate the death count for cigarettes, they would have to be removed from society; the same way as the push for firearms is being discussed. Which was my entire point;

Yes, firearms are responsible for more deaths in countries where they are more obtainable. That's the way it works for everything. If America were to shut down all vehicles on the roads in attempt to eliminate the death count relating to automobile accidents and manslaughters, the statistics for those figures would fall much lower than a country that still uses them. If you compare the number of alcohol-related deaths per year in the UK to a small country or village that doesn't use alcohol, the UK would look just as guilty in that statistic as the US does for firearm deaths. And then you'll have the people from that country thanking God for their safety and well-being that they don't live where you do

So again, what we're really disputing, is, eliminating one right to a nation because it raises the fatality count there, but leaving others the way they are in our own homeland because...well, I don't know, exactly? Why not the same enthusiam to ban alcohol and tobacco in your own backyards? They're far more responsible than firearms deaths at raising the death count in both countries.

It is very good news the UK has only 14 deaths per year related to firearm incidents. However, I will point out that was exactly my point behind the 'cause and effect' statistic. You guys have no right to bear arms and firearm laws are very tight; as a result, there are only 14 deaths per year. When you lose your right to cigarettes, alcohol, driving, and when knifes are outlawed as well; what will you have? What is the effect? A much larger and ever-growing population and safer lifestyle. But it'll cost you your freedom, as police watch your every move and wander what your intentions are with the grocery bag you're bringing home from the market. Or why you're out past the curfew. Or, why you're even out of your home in the first place. Get back inside!


@Seppuku Arts, the number of assualts are moreorless the same between our two countries. I can't say I'm very suprised, to be honest. It goes right back to the earlier points made by a few people that it's not the inanimate object sitting on the desk that makes a country dangerous, it's the people.

After all, man has gotten along just fine for thousands of years killing each other without the luxury of firearms, drugs, and vehicles. If we have to go back to sticks and stones, we will. Unless our governments outlaw those as well to keep us from killing each other


Kravenwolf

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ron Erickson
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 03:42
Link
Very well said Kravenwolf.

a.k.a WOLF!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Gil Galvanti
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 03:58 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 04:03
Link
Quote: "Well, now it's time for me to spark another debate. Why is it that people want to outlaw cigarettes but legalize weed? Makes no sense.

1. Weed has never killed anyone. This is a lie. A teenager who was driving high one night slammed into a mother and her baby. The mother died. Weed never killed anyone? Well, indirectly...

2. Weed is not as bad as alcohol. Alcohol does the same things as weed, only it can kill your liver. Smoking weed can kill your lungs. Call it a lesser evil if you will, but I think otherwise.

3. Weed isn't addictive. Wrong. Eric Roberts checked into Celebrity Rehab over his weed addiction. Sure, if you do it every now and then, like smoking, it doesn't really form a habit, but don't lie and say it's not addictive.

I can see the good uses for it, but generally those who support it are not in for the "goodness" over it, they simply want a high from it. For example, Montel Willaims doesn't get high on it for the hell of it, he has a problem that causes a lot of issues."

Well, I'm not exactly a weed advocate - I don't smoke it and don't plan on ever smoking it, the same as cigarettes. But...
I have seen several unbiased documentaries on weed (National Geographic has several good ones), so I do know some things about it.

For one, it can have positive medical benefits in alleviating pain, which is why in some countries and even states, it is possible to get a medical marijuana license. Cigarettes clearly have a very negative effect on health, and is addictive so that smokers usually keep smoking the amount they do or increase it, while I'm not sure there have been any concrete findings related to long term effects of marijuana. Weed is not addictive (at least not physically, but nearly anything can addictive mentally), and is certainly not as physically addictive as alcohol or even coffee or caffeine. So it is not something that necessarily causes people to need it as they would a cigarette or, in a more extreme example, driving someone to crime to get money for an addictive hard drug like heroin or cocaine.

As for the effect weed has on you, of course it would be stupid to drive under the influence, but it's the same with alcohol, and alcohol is legal. But as far as negative psychological effects, as far as I understand, marijuana just makes you tired, hungry, and happy, whereas alcohol can have extreme effects either way. Alcohol easily and often drives people to violence or abuse (but can also lead people to be more talkative and friendly), but weed does not have the same kind of effect on people, nor the variation of effect that alcohol can have (from extremely combative to extreme happiness).

Lastly, and the most important reason I think it needs to be legalized, is because of how it funds criminal and terrorist organizations. I believe a large amount of profit for gangs in both South and North America come from the profit they make on marijuana sales, and if it was legalized, it would completely take that source of income away from them.

Like I said, I'm by no means a pothead, I've never even smoked it, but I think it's only logical to legalize weed, especially since cigarettes and alcohol are legal.

Here's one of the good National Geographic documentaries if you're interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9jBQYMU7Ko
And another from National Geographic (love that channel ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg8wrzmIdyI


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 04:02 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 04:03
Link
Quote: "How about we all talk about Australia? It's pretty cool here haha"


Australia yes... Tasmania, not so much

A man will one day wear a tophat in glasgow on a sunny day juggeling grapes while humming the jurrasic park theme tune.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fuzz
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Nov 2006
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 04:47
Link
Hahaha harsh man It's not that bad

Darkest Hour - It's just beginning
http://www.yoyogames.com/games/162628-darkest-hour-alpha
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 04:50
Link
Quote: "Hahaha harsh man It's not that bad"




A man will one day wear a tophat in glasgow on a sunny day juggeling grapes while humming the jurrasic park theme tune.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 07:06 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 07:21
Link
Quote: "As for the effect weed has on you, of course it would be stupid to drive under the influence, but it's the same with alcohol, and alcohol is legal. But as far as negative psychological effects, as far as I understand, marijuana just makes you tired, hungry, and happy, whereas alcohol can have extreme effects either way. Alcohol easily and often drives people to violence or abuse (but can also lead people to be more talkative and friendly), but weed does not have the same kind of effect on people, nor the variation of effect that alcohol can have (from extremely combative to extreme happiness)."

I have always hated when people compare weed to alcohol. To me, it just doesn't seem a valid excuse. Why? Because we did try to ban alcohol! Look at what happened lol. It just doesn't make sense, it really doesn't. Because one bad thing is legal, another should be?
I believe weed has its very few medicinal purposes and personally believe that's as far as it should legally go. The mentality of "alcohol is legal then weed should be too," just doesn't work for me, yet somehow that is ALWAYS so many peoples' opinion on it. If that's the case, then why isn't vicodin, norcos, dilauldid, etc. legal? They're obviously harmful to ones' self due to addiction and long term effects, but not so much harmful to others. It doesn't give you that extreme high as weed or alcohol does, so it isn't too unsafe to drive on. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but you are incredibly more functional than you would be on weed or alcohol. I'm certainly not saying they should be legal; I just think that if people believe weed should be legal based on the argument of alcohol being legal... than I think narcotics such as pain medication should be legal as well... I also believe they are more medicinally useful than weed is too. Deadlier? To ones' self yes, but not necessarily to others.

I've had multiple friends who smoked weed a few times daily, yet they say they weren't "addicted." Complete lie, and it's obvious they were addicted because they basically wasted years of their life. A particular buddy of mine smoked weed every day for two years and never did anything with his life... He stayed home and played call of duty for two years... Never took a single class after high school. His personality became entirely different when he'd go a day without weed too. I'm talking, suicidal thoughts, different.
Anything can be habit forming. It's not so much a physical addiction as it is a mental; but that doesn't make it not addicting.

Weed should stay illegal, in my opinion. If it helps you medicinally, fantastic, let's keep it legal through prescription only. There is absolutely no reason to legalize, aside from money, I guess. Which in itself, could be argued entirely to make it legal simply because of this debt we've managed lol. Though I don't believe legalizing a drug is the way to go.

That's just my 2 cents.

I would post on this gun debate, but I'd pretty much say what everyone else has lol: Guns should not be banned in the USA, it wouldn't help, end of story. I've always found that the people who are anti-gun, are the people who haven't shot a gun. I've literally, no lie, entirely changed a buddy's view on gun laws, simply because I took him out shooting with an AR-15, Glock-19, 12 Gauge Benelli, and a .270.
Go have a day like that a shooting range and then tell me you're still against guns lol.

Signature's are stupid.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Errant AI
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2006
Location:
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 08:01
Link
Quote: "Unless our governments outlaw those as well to keep us from killing each other"


Of course, government democide was responsible for about 170 million civilian deaths last century... Generally in totalitarian states where the people are forbidden access to arms. I'll keep my guns

Quote: "It's very difficult to talk about statistics"

IMO, comparing statistics is sort of a wash. The USA is incredibly diverse and the laws vary state to state, county to county. There are some areas that are quite dangerous and others which are quite safe. Some of the safest areas have very relaxed gun laws while some of the most dangerous have very strict gun laws and vise versa. If someone wants to visit the USA they don't need to be afraid of having to duck bullets unless you plan on joining a gang. Regardless, I wouldn't recommend vacationing in Detroit, Baltimore, Atlanta, etc.

If anyone has never been shooting, I'd suggest giving it a try as it's a lot of fun and can be more challenging than you might think. I've taken several friends who were very anti-gun out shooting and they all ended the day with smiles on their faces and wondering what all the hype had been about and the experience dispelled some irrational fears.

Quote: "legalize weed?"

I'm not a fan of any sort of prohibition because it directly increases criminality and funds criminal organizations.

The main practical problem with legalizing weed is that currently there isn't a field sobriety test which would have a lot of strength in a court of law. For alcohol you can blow into the breathalyzer and bam there's the score and either its above the limit or it's not. With out something like that it's too subjective as to if someone is impaired or not. If anyone ever invents a device for instant and accurate measure of cannabis intoxication they will be a very, very, very rich person.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Isocadia
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 09:00
Link
Well, here in holland weed is legal, and we have absolutely zero problems with it. A few of my class mates smoke weed, nothing changed with them. So I honestly believe weed should be legalized, since if you compare weed to alcohol here, there are 13 year old children dieing because of alcohol poisoning, but i've heard no stories of someone dieing from being high on weed.

Isocadia
Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 09:55
Link
I thought half the youth of England sat around smoking weed and playing COD abd Trackmania all day

Seriously, I'm waiting on Jeremy Kyle coming out and calling someone scum. The people who do nothing all day, would probably be doing nothing even if they didn't have any - or they'd more likely be taking something else. Frankly I've seen so much stupidity caused by alcohol, anything else is practically a non-entity. People who smoke weed tend not to bother anybody, tend to keep themselves to themselves.
Anyhoo, I think we should move away from the weed debate, youngsters and all that.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
jrowe
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Oct 2002
Location: Here
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 10:46 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 10:48
Link
Quote: "It is very good news the UK has only 14 deaths per year related to firearm incidents. However, I will point out that was exactly my point behind the 'cause and effect' statistic. You guys have no right to bear arms and firearm laws are very tight; as a result, there are only 14 deaths per year. When you lose your right to cigarettes, alcohol, driving, and when knifes are outlawed as well; what will you have? What is the effect? A much larger and ever-growing population and safer lifestyle. But it'll cost you your freedom, as police watch your every move and wander what your intentions are with the grocery bag you're bringing home from the market. Or why you're out past the curfew. Or, why you're even out of your home in the first place. Get back inside!
"


I think this is the crux of the difference of opinion. A lot of politics consists of weighing up the rights of the individual against the welfare of society and size of the state. Because of the difference in history and culture between Europe and America we draw this line in very different places. Part of this stems from anticommunist feeling in postwar American culture, as opposed to Europe which had a significant socialist and union movements that meant reform of public services.

Britons, for example, have a much larger state apparatus, giving us free universal healthcare, broader welfare system and lots of other things, which mean we pay MUCH higher taxes. The consequence of this is constant CCTV surveillance, more abuse of the system by individuals, a large bureaucracy and more laws than you could imagine.

Americans tend to have much more freedom to live without government interference and freedom of competition which mean a much leaner state. The culture of competition between individuals or companies is a large part of the 'American Dream' and probably contributed to the USA becoming the largest post-war superpower. Though it does limit the ability of the poor to get access to things like healthcare. But the state wouldn't DARE interfere with your lives in the same way ours does and you rightly value this freedom.

Weird though it must seem on your side of the pond, most Europeans see the pros of their system and prefer it. Likewise the American system seems strange to us Brits but you quite rightly value the extra freedoms they have. Neither side is right per say, both systems have their merits and simple cultural differences shouldn't bring up this much bile.


For Fathers and Sons who enjoy wholy spirits.
Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 11:08 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 11:37
Link
Quote: "Seppuku Arts, if someone murdered me. I would much rather be shot than stabbed or beaten. If you get shot a very loud noise will be heard so help will arrive more quickly, also the person trying to kill me would not shoot that many rounds as they will run out of ammo and will cause a lot of noise (so they will run away before someone sees them).

Stabbing and beating is quieter and can be done repeatedly without having to buy more ammo or cause a lot of noise."



You might prefer to get shot, I can understand that, especially if it means a quick death (though getting shot doesn't necessarily mean a quick and easy death either). But if we're going on UK vs US on this, whilst you might figure if you're going to get murdered in the US, it might be quick, but it's three times as likely to happen (if you're going by statistics). Personally I'd prefer to have a lower chance of being murdered.

Though of course:

Quote: "IMO, comparing statistics is sort of a wash. The USA is incredibly diverse and the laws vary state to state, county to county. There are some areas that are quite dangerous and others which are quite safe. "


This is quite true. I think the most the statistics can do is have you question whether guns are good for a society or bad. The fact that where there are stricter gun laws in the US there is more gun crime (I've seen some of the stats before) suggests even more that the US should keep their guns, but other parts of the world suffer less despite having stricter guns laws. But as you say, it depends entirely on location too, I mean if I were to walk down St. Annes in Nottingham, my chances of being attacked are considerably are lot higher than walking down a suburb in Washington DC. Somebody might happily move to a spot in a America and be safe compared to a specific spot in the UK. It's dodgey areas that negatively affect statistics, so long as you're avoiding them then typically speaking, you should be okay.

Quote: "If anyone has never been shooting, I'd suggest giving it a try as it's a lot of fun and can be more challenging than you might think. I've taken several friends who were very anti-gun out shooting and they all ended the day with smiles on their faces and wondering what all the hype had been about and the experience dispelled some irrational fears."


Actually I wouldn't mind giving it a go, I'm sure it's a blast.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 11:59
Link
Quote: "Why not the same enthusiam to ban alcohol and tobacco in your own backyards?"


Addiction perhaps?

It also depends who you talk to. One big obstacle is the vested interest of the alcohol and tobacco industries. Same with guns.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 12:50
Link
Well, my point stands at the fact that legalizing weed would do nothing but make more people willing to try it. Beleive it or not, there are some people who do not do things out of fear of prosecution. Saying to these people, "It's legal now." simply is like giving a teenager birth control and saying "Go have sex now." It leads to bad things. Formerly non-addicted clean people are now getting high, people are flaking off at work, soon the whole production of goods is affected, and before long you've got a waste of work force and then you've got rising prices which ultimately destroy the economy. While I can't ever see it getting this bad, why take the risk?

I will agree with the fact that if we outlawed every dangerous thing, butter should be outlawed. Yes, I'm using the, "Thank You for Smoking" approach. Cholesterol is the leading cause of death in America, not cigarettes. While I personally enjoy a cigarette now and then, I know for a fact I partake in fatty foods as do many other people on a daily basis. It's like with anything else, you need to draw the line. I'm fine with one cigarette at most for a week, I don't need to smoke up a pack a day to get any satisfaction. Smoking is much like drinking soda, in times of anger and stress, you fall back on a habit. Whether that habit be eating, smoking, drinking, etc.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
Back to top
Profile PM
SpyDaniel
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 13:02
Link
How come this is allowed to go on, but when someone advertises some thing innocent, it gets locked outright? This thread has to be worse than a spam post or advertisement, right?


Minecraft Server: mcs1.virtualsandbox.co.uk
http://virtualsandbox.co.uk/forum
Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 13:13
Link
This is a discussion, an advertisement is not. This is a forum, designed to let people share opinions on the internet, the thread has the watch icon, and is flamebait - it's on it's last legs, someone will go too far and it will be locked before very long. We are trying to let people vent - every so often a thread goes off the tracks a little, but it's better to let people have their say, get it off their chests, then we can get back to advertisements and spam again.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 13:23
Link
I was thinking this was a very calm and mature discussion about gun law between US and Europe leading onto talking about vices. I don't think anybody who's engaging at the moment will push it over the edge because as far as I can see it has been respectful, but all it takes is one touchy person to spoil the debate and for it to topple over, probably hence mods are keeping an eye on it.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 13:35 Edited at: 15th Mar 2011 13:52
Link
i am sorry. but honestly?
Quote: "says that people should be free to do whatever they want to their bodies."


Smoking affects more than you.
Smoking weed affects more than you, doesnt it?
Passive smoking anyone?!


[Q]uik, Quiker than most
Back to top
Profile PM
Fatal Berserker
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 16:35
Link
Not only does passive smoking affect your health, it is also is free advertising for you to get cigarettes yourself.

Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 15th Mar 2011 17:16
Link
When was the last time you had to endure passive smoking though?

Most public places are no-smoking, all bars are no-smoking, public transport - in fact any workplace, even your own home when people are working there is no-smoking. So if your having to put up with passive smoking, it's probably within your control to avoid it, but you don't for whatever reason. Really it's up to smoker to be considerate - smoke outside, away from children, and be willing to go places where you aren't allowed to smoke. A friend of mine is a social worker, and it drives her mad that when she visits someone needing help, they aren't allowed to smoke in their own home. That can't help stress levels at all.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-23 13:25:42
Your offset time is: 2025-05-23 13:25:42