Topic: Gun free zone - page 14. (Read 21968 times)

The Japanese attitude towards suicide is different from the Judeo-Christian attitude. Suicide can be honourable in Japanese culture.

As far as healthy goes, the simplest definition is life expectancy at birth. By this measure, Japan is the healthiest country in the world (despite all the suicide). Among developed countries, the United States is the least healthy. The US is unique among wealthy countries in that it lacks a strong State health care system. Thus, the exceptionally poor health of the average US citizen.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life%20expectancy#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:JPN:AUS:SGP:HKG:FIN:FRA:DNK:BEL:AUT:DEU:LUX:IRL:SWE:ESP:GBR:NLD:ITA:GRC:KOR:CHE&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

And American culture is healthy? Do you have studies that demonstrate that a Japanese citizen's apparent lack of desire or ability to murder other people is the cause of suicide?

Upon further investigation, I find your attempt at deflection to be one of the most pathetic things that ever landed in a forum. Japanese suicide rates are about 50 percent greater than in the United States. Compare that to the ratio of Japanese gun deaths and homicides to those of the United States.

You sir, suck at making points.

Just gonna leave this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan
Japan is not what I would point to as a "healthy" country.

JROTC shooting programs are being eliminated partially because of the anti-war movement. But what they don't seem to realize is a well-trained unorganized militia, by the military, active, reserve, and/or veterans, but explicitly not FOR recruitment, should help to eliminate the perpetual war/police empire the U.S. has become. A rifle behind every blade of grass needs to be in the U.S., not being dragged all over the globe, part of Team America World Police.

If I ran a private school, I would want to train:
how to recognize Newspeak and other dystopic elements purporting to be the best parts of society, non-violent dispute resolution, what REAL charity is (volunteering, donating and auditing their causes, not being taxed to death), money management, civics, survival skills, marksmanship, the mindset to save innocent lives, ideally without self-sacrifice unless absolutely necessary, and Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps could be reformed into Junior Samaritans' Training Corps. When everybody graduates, they are given the imperative to cast out far and wide, and show that being pro-liberty isn't a selfish unattainable ideal, it's a way of life that is antithetical to having a standing army, taxation, or really any government at all.

"Speak softly and carry a big boomstick."

Is that what they do in Japan to realize a murder rate of 0.3? Or their firearm related death rate of 0.07 vs. the United States firearm death rate of 10.2 per 100,000?

That will never work. It makes too much sense.

How about all junior and seniors take classes that teach
- Gun Safety
- Gun proficiency
- The affect of shooting or killing someone
- Gun Laws

The biggest problem we have today is gun ignorance.

If you make guns illegal then only the criminals have guns!

Saving innocent lives is best at every time in the age of man.

Was it a joke or an argument? In case it was meant as an argument, I'll recommend thinking more carefully at the difference between what I wrote and what you think I thought while writing it and add a little thinking in the process too.

• If you forfeited your freedom of thinking for yourself that's your problem don't think that everyone did.
• Questioning something is not denigrating it. What was best yesterday might not be today.

• Past glory and foundation might not be the same...
• If it happens they were, see previous points to deduce logically that there's no contradiction in my previous post unless you blatantly twist my meaning.

Irony defined:

Denigrates referring to founding principles, and then:
laments loss of former glory.

 

Washington, D.C., circa 1922. "Denby Christmas tree." Junior remembers this as the best Christmas ever! His gun-giving dad is Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby.

Flawed argument? Where do you think these per 100,000 statistics come from? How can you compare the two? For instance, if I were to compare a 100,000 from the U.S and another 100,000 from the UK I would need to know where all these people lived, what the crime rate was like in their area generally ( more statistics on these individuals ) and things like whether or not they had mental problems. It isn't flawed in the slightest, people are relying too much on funny numbers that don't make much sense in order to make their arguments, but then again, I shouldn't expect any less from people who are statistic illiterate and politically biased.

The one thing that has stood out to me personally is the fact that the majority of the time the people who committed these gun massacres had mental health problems.

Federal gun control would work better than cities with gun control. People can cross city boundaries. Did you know that?

Yes, cities with "gun control" have more crimes than suburbs without.

Bigger countries has nothing to do with statistics per 100,000.

USA is much less dense than UK. Probably few times. So according to your flawed argument the crime rate should be much less in USA. If you look at a lot of statistics cities have more crimes than suburbs.

The problem with using this statistic and trying to compare the UK with the US is that the US is in fact a bigger country ( by a lot ) and will of course have more crime because of the larger population that comes with the size of the land, the same can also be said in reverse for the UK, because of the smaller land and smaller population the crime rate will be lower, plus it is easier to police a smaller group of people than a larger one. I sadly must conclude that this will be the result of any debate, lots of flawed statistics, flawed reasoning and no realistic solutions offered which is why I find this debate so stupid, it's a bit like news organisations that make conclusions based on a poll of 5000 people and assume that is what the rest of the country thinks, no thank you, I'm more intelligent than that.

The right to self-defense preexisted the U.S. Constitution, written language, and even homo sapiens. Do you love to torture animals after you've declawed them, ripped out their teeth, and excised their defensive noxious/poisonous secretion glands? Fuck you for wanting innocents to be defenseless.

Confirmed:

( ( 67920 + 13232 + 550 + 17772 ) / 626410000 ) : 100000

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28+%28+67920+%2B+13232+%2B+550+%2B+17772+%29+%2F+626410000+%29+%3A+100000

158.8 : 386.3

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=158.8+%3A+386.3

That means for each 1 violent action committed against an UK citizen in 2011, there were 2.43 violent actions committed against an USA citizen in 2011.

You should not post with your brains on testosterone, really...

What is absolutely amazing is that I expected some rational justifications from the pro-guns side. I was even prepared to be convinced that the US didn't fit the model that worked for other civilized countries. But all posts here and what I've seen everywhere else demonstrate either obvious logical fallacies, reference to an amendment written 225 years ago like it's god-written and should not be questioned, irrational fears that borderline paranoia or just plain stupidity. This country is a shadow of itself, please put yourself together, that's not like we don't care and enjoy the train wreck.

Quote of the day:


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/129008.html