What's on your mind?

[mangaluva]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 14674.html

Oh, for... [rant composed of unintelligible anger]

I have all of the reasons to be glad that my parents chose to raise me in Scotland instead of the US of late. Seriously.

[kkslider5552000]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 14674.html

Oh, for... [rant composed of unintelligible anger]

I have all of the reasons to be glad that my parents chose to raise me in Scotland instead of the US of late. Seriously.

Oh wow. This person needs to die. Holy s***.

[Stopwatch]

Reading a piece in the Metro about Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stating that there's no point in more stringent gun laws in the US because "gun laws do not work". He's absolutely right. I mean, just look at all the mass shootings that the UK has suffered since the post-Dunblane gun laws. Oh, wait...

To be fair, gun laws in the US don't work.  Not because they can't work, but because they don't.  They're poorly written, and no one enforces them.  Furthermore, there's freaking Mexico.

Spoiler:

Get them written properly, get them enforced 'else there's a penalty.
Also, the Mexico argument only works if you presume that regular people can get hold of illegal guns that way. The majority of gun crime occurs within domestic situations, an argument getting out of control, that sort of stuff. Are those the type of people who would get hold of illegal guns? Could the people involved in these school shootings have gotten hold of guns so easily if the only way to get a gun was illegally? I'd hope not. Those who'd obtain illegal guns would be most likely gang members who pretty much fight within themselves for the most part. And who can deal with them? The police hopefully.
It'd be too optimistic to hope for an immediate reduction in gun crimes after the enforcement of laws, if anything I'd predict that in the short term it could rise, but long term it would definitely be for the better imo.
And if Mexico is that big a problem perhaps your border control needs a bit more work?
Sorry if any of this comes off as offensive, but this is something I feel strongly about so...

[Callid]

Scotland's about to bring in stricter licensing laws over air rifles because a child was shot and killed with one. One child dead=stricter laws. In the US, twenty children dead=...the KKK and the WBC getting into a fight over who's crazier.

The WBC, without doubt. The KKK is only 400 years behind, not crazy

Reading a piece in the Metro about Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stating that there's no point in more stringent gun laws in the US because "gun laws do not work". He's absolutely right. I mean, just look at all the mass shootings that the UK has suffered since the post-Dunblane gun laws. Oh, wait...

To be fair, gun laws in the US don't work.  Not because they can't work, but because they don't.  They're poorly written, and no one enforces them.  Furthermore, there's freaking Mexico.

Well, we have Poland right next to us, too, and Belarus and Russia are right behind that. Still, our gun control laws work, at least as far as controlling who gets a gun is concerned.

[mangaluva]

Reading a piece in the Metro about Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stating that there's no point in more stringent gun laws in the US because "gun laws do not work". He's absolutely right. I mean, just look at all the mass shootings that the UK has suffered since the post-Dunblane gun laws. Oh, wait...

To be fair, gun laws in the US don't work.  Not because they can't work, but because they don't.  They're poorly written, and no one enforces them.  Furthermore, there's freaking Mexico.

Spoiler:

Get them written properly, get them enforced 'else there's a penalty.
Also, the Mexico argument only works if you presume that regular people can get hold of illegal guns that way. The majority of gun crime occurs within domestic situations, an argument getting out of control, that sort of stuff. Are those the type of people who would get hold of illegal guns? Could the people involved in these school shootings have gotten hold of guns so easily if the only way to get a gun was illegally? I'd hope not. Those who'd obtain illegal guns would be most likely gang members who pretty much fight within themselves for the most part. And who can deal with them? The police hopefully.
It'd be too optimistic to hope for an immediate reduction in gun crimes after the enforcement of laws, if anything I'd predict that in the short term it could rise, but long term it would definitely be for the better imo.
And if Mexico is that big a problem perhaps your border control needs a bit more work?
Sorry if any of this comes off as offensive, but this is something I feel strongly about so...

I have to agree with Stop. When it comes to fatal crimes, the only excuse for not implementing some new laws is not "it won't solve everything". If it brings in at least some reduction, that's a good start.
I have never in my entire life understood the purpose of the First Amendment. It's awfully "every man for himself", which kinda defeats the entire purpose of humanity's drive towards community and civilization. You're supposed to have a police force that can protect you. You're supposed to have a social support system that makes sure people don't get frightened and desperate enough to be killing people. This is not a problem that is unique to the USA, I know, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a problem and badly needs remedied.

[Commi-Ninja]

 :|

I do not think that any decent Christian would agree with this. Many people bring shame to their religious teachings by acting like this  

The Baptist Church needs to do something about these nutters. They are forever making the church indistinguishable from raving psychopaths.

I know. ;____;  Trust me, if I could do something to shut them up, I would.  I have seriously considered writing to them, though I doubt it would really help that much.

Reading a piece in the Metro about Louie Gohmert (R-TX) stating that there's no point in more stringent gun laws in the US because "gun laws do not work". He's absolutely right. I mean, just look at all the mass shootings that the UK has suffered since the post-Dunblane gun laws. Oh, wait...

To be fair, gun laws in the US don't work.  Not because they can't work, but because they don't.  They're poorly written, and no one enforces them.  Furthermore, there's freaking Mexico.

Spoiler:

Get them written properly, get them enforced 'else there's a penalty.
Also, the Mexico argument only works if you presume that regular people can get hold of illegal guns that way. The majority of gun crime occurs within domestic situations, an argument getting out of control, that sort of stuff. Are those the type of people who would get hold of illegal guns? Could the people involved in these school shootings have gotten hold of guns so easily if the only way to get a gun was illegally? I'd hope not. Those who'd obtain illegal guns would be most likely gang members who pretty much fight within themselves for the most part. And who can deal with them? The police hopefully.
It'd be too optimistic to hope for an immediate reduction in gun crimes after the enforcement of laws, if anything I'd predict that in the short term it could rise, but long term it would definitely be for the better imo.
And if Mexico is that big a problem perhaps your border control needs a bit more work?
Sorry if any of this comes off as offensive, but this is something I feel strongly about so...

Gun trafficking.  It does happen.  A lot.  Border control does need some work, though.

[mangaluva]

 

I do not think that any decent Christian would agree with this. Many people bring shame to their religious teachings by acting like this 

The Baptist Church needs to do something about these nutters. They are forever making the church indistinguishable from raving psychopaths.

I know. ;____;  Trust me, if I could do something to shut them up, I would.  I have seriously considered writing to them, though I doubt it would really help that much.

I really don't think they're the type to care about Disgusted From Turnbridge Wells. I don't know what can curb their crazy. If someone thinks of something, let me know.

[Stopwatch]

 

I do not think that any decent Christian would agree with this. Many people bring shame to their religious teachings by acting like this 

The Baptist Church needs to do something about these nutters. They are forever making the church indistinguishable from raving psychopaths.

I know. ;____;  Trust me, if I could do something to shut them up, I would.  I have seriously considered writing to them, though I doubt it would really help that much.

On the bright side, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to actually consider them Christians outside of themselves

[Commi-Ninja]

 

I do not think that any decent Christian would agree with this. Many people bring shame to their religious teachings by acting like this 

The Baptist Church needs to do something about these nutters. They are forever making the church indistinguishable from raving psychopaths.

I know. ;____;  Trust me, if I could do something to shut them up, I would.  I have seriously considered writing to them, though I doubt it would really help that much.

On the bright side, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to actually consider them Christians outside of themselves

Eh, you'd be surprised.  Sensationalist media only makes sensationalist WBC more obvious.  People who know nothing about Christianity or what normal Christians are like think they're the real deal.  Which only serves to cause them to hate all Christians, regardless of what they're really like.

[GinRei]

I have to agree with Stop. When it comes to fatal crimes, the only excuse for not implementing some new laws is not "it won't solve everything". If it brings in at least some reduction, that's a good start.

Bless your heart, you have more faith in the US Congress than Americans do.

I have never in my entire life understood the purpose of the First Amendment. It's awfully "every man for himself", which kinda defeats the entire purpose of humanity's drive towards community and civilization.

Second.  First is free speech and all that jazz.

That being said, the purpose was that when it was written, we were occupied by the British, and commonfolk took up arms and formed militia.

I really don't think they're the type to care about Disgusted From Turnbridge Wells. I don't know what can curb their crazy. If someone thinks of something, let me know.

As extreme as it is: death.  There's nothing else that will stop them.  They construe the death of innocent children as an act of God against gay marriage.  In a state that didn't pass a gay marriage law.  If that doesn't say everything, I don't know what will.  They get off on being hated, because that's how things were when the Church first started.  They think it makes them pure.

[kkslider5552000]

I have never in my entire life understood the purpose of the First Amendment. It's awfully "every man for himself", which kinda defeats the entire purpose of humanity's drive towards community and civilization. You're supposed to have a police force that can protect you. You're supposed to have a social support system that makes sure people don't get frightened and desperate enough to be killing people. This is not a problem that is unique to the USA, I know, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a problem and badly needs remedied.

Don't start a debate like this, please.

[Giogio]

Do I prefer it if people confront me if I'm annoying/frustrating/upsetting/embarrassing/[insert another negative emotion here] them or if they act normally with me (so I don't know) but still feel that way and talk about it with others later?
I still can't decide. Well, that's not exactly true, but you can only have it confirmed one way. You can't have it confirmed that no one thinks that way or talks about you like that, but you can know if people *are* thinking/talking that way. So, it's possibly more a question of whether you would rather *know* for sure or whether you would prefer to have vague suspicions that can't be dispelled but not having it confirmed. The knowing can hurt, as can the suspicions, but which one would be worse?
Hmm... perhaps I still don't know. And this entire post makes me seem kinda paranoid XD, but it's justified. I do spend too long thinking about it though ....

I've been thinking about that sort of stuff too lately... As for me, I'd strongly prefer people telling me. I'm almost sure there's talking behind my back and I hate it. I really don't get how it is 'polite' to do so.
If you look at the options -

* People openly state what they don't like. You then can decide if that's something you want to change, and have a good idea how others feel about you. Sure, it hurts for the moment, but it gives you the chance to react.
* Everyone is polite and won't 'offend' anybody by telling them what they truly think. You still witness them talking about others behind their backs, so it's likely they'd talk about you that way too. Now you're free to go all paranoid, and IF it's really bad, some just turn their back on you and you still don't know why.

...well, Stop, I can only honestly tell you that I really don't think badly about you *hugs*

[aly_angelflight]

I have to agree with Stop. When it comes to fatal crimes, the only excuse for not implementing some new laws is not "it won't solve everything". If it brings in at least some reduction, that's a good start.

Bless your heart, you have more faith in the US Congress than Americans do.

Congress needs a heavy dose of pragmatism, for that matter.

[Stopwatch]

Do I prefer it if people confront me if I'm annoying/frustrating/upsetting/embarrassing/[insert another negative emotion here] them or if they act normally with me (so I don't know) but still feel that way and talk about it with others later?
I still can't decide. Well, that's not exactly true, but you can only have it confirmed one way. You can't have it confirmed that no one thinks that way or talks about you like that, but you can know if people *are* thinking/talking that way. So, it's possibly more a question of whether you would rather *know* for sure or whether you would prefer to have vague suspicions that can't be dispelled but not having it confirmed. The knowing can hurt, as can the suspicions, but which one would be worse?
Hmm... perhaps I still don't know. And this entire post makes me seem kinda paranoid XD, but it's justified. I do spend too long thinking about it though ....

I've been thinking about that sort of stuff too lately... As for me, I'd strongly prefer people telling me. I'm almost sure there's talking behind my back and I hate it. I really don't get how it is 'polite' to do so.
If you look at the options -

* People openly state what they don't like. You then can decide if that's something you want to change, and have a good idea how others feel about you. Sure, it hurts for the moment, but it gives you the chance to react.
* Everyone is polite and won't 'offend' anybody by telling them what they truly think. You still witness them talking about others behind their backs, so it's likely they'd talk about you that way too. Now you're free to go all paranoid, and IF it's really bad, some just turn their back on you and you still don't know why.

...well, Stop, I can only honestly tell you that I really don't think badly about you *hugs*

Hmm... while until recently I thought I'd prefer people telling me I think I end up more upset if they don't tell me and I find out some other way. Which is why if I suspect that people aren't outright telling me stuff like that I get worried it's because they're simply being too polite to tell me. Like when you have answers on a test and they seem too easy so you get suspicious they're trick questions. If that makes any sense? It seems irrational and probably is to an extent, but as stuff like that has happened before it allows me to cling to the possibility of it happening again, even at a low probability. Then again, I have to say I'm almost sure of it happening to an extent too. Not knowing for certain lets me hope that people aren't, but if people aren't I still can't confirm it. And I'm going in circles now...

*hugs Gio*

And I also can't understand how it's polite to talk behind people's backs like that (unless you're concerned about them and want to check with others they're okay... possibly?) so~

[Callid]

I agree with Gio.

I have never in my entire life understood the purpose of the First Amendment. It's awfully "every man for himself", which kinda defeats the entire purpose of humanity's drive towards community and civilization. You're supposed to have a police force that can protect you. You're supposed to have a social support system that makes sure people don't get frightened and desperate enough to be killing people. This is not a problem that is unique to the USA, I know, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a problem and badly needs remedied.

It a thing of history. For one, the thing GinRei mentioned, but also the whole frontier- and wild-west-thing later on. Why they don't get rid of it now is a different question entirely. I mean, they did do that with the 18th, so it's not impossible (unlike, for example, the whole federalism thing in Germany).
But it's the same with the whole messed-up presidential election system - they are a bit too stuck in tradition to consider any reform, even if the original purpose of a law has long become dispensable and the law is now causing problems. That's the result of 250 years without a revolution, forced reform or some other major international interference