Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
No, I will simply chuck mines into the swamp and force the master to run sprints across said swamp!
No, I will simply chuck mines into the swamp and force the master to run sprints across said swamp!
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
then the master will ban swamps, running and mines....
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
If the master bans swamps, then he is anti-environment, and we've got him by the spot where his ballz would be, if he had ballz!
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
the masters balls are already swamped.....
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Looks as if I have come to the wrong place. I thought this was a forum of intelligent (mostly) American adults.
I would suggest that the four year olds at my local kindergarten have more sense.
What a bunch of toss pots!
I would suggest that the four year olds at my local kindergarten have more sense.
What a bunch of toss pots!
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
Yeah, you better leave.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Thats funny, your first few posts involved insulting an entire nation based on generalizations and stereotypes.
Is that what you consider intelligent, adult conversation?
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Do you not deserve to be taken down a peg or two? You stomp the world with your little guns and big mouths and you cannot understand that you are not wanted. (At least until January 20th.)
John Wayne wasn't the brightest but at least he made it as a star. Many contributors here just want to play at being big shots. Bang bang.
Tell me how my stereotypes are wrong: after all your stereotypes are your most successful export.
John Wayne wasn't the brightest but at least he made it as a star. Many contributors here just want to play at being big shots. Bang bang.
Tell me how my stereotypes are wrong: after all your stereotypes are your most successful export.
C
Cancel3
Guest
And how many of us voted against Bush, despised what he did and are glad he is gone?
You want to come here and bash any american who is not just like you. I bet you are quick to talk up diversity too?
lmao
I don't go and try and push my beliefs on people in other countries. I do not take guns when I travel to other countries.
But I also do not judge an entire nation by the loudmouths and stereotypes.
C
Cancel3
Guest
And where is it that you are from? Since you feel so superior, can you reveal that little tidbit?
Lowaicue
英語在香港
It is no secret. The information is posted next to my avitar (which is, in fact, the view from just in front of my house. Taken a couple of months ago on the way back from the pub.)
I do not feel superior, indeed the reverse is often the case BUT many Americans are as I describe and fail to realise their general unpopularity round the world. If you do not fit that, good on you.
I do not feel superior, indeed the reverse is often the case BUT many Americans are as I describe and fail to realise their general unpopularity round the world. If you do not fit that, good on you.
LOL.
Socrtease
Verified User
fixed
Socrtease
Verified User
Dr. Kleck's Answer
Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."
(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
Read the WHOLE article at the link above. Kleck's methods are sound. Shit, polls during the elections used sample most times of less than 2000 people and they seemed to get it right.
C
Cancel4
Guest
On April 20, 1999, gunlovers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shared their enthusiasm for the 2nd amendment at Columbine High School in Columbine, Colorado, killing 12 students and a teacher, as well as wounding 23 others, before committing suicide.
On October 2, 2006, gunlover Charles Carl Roberts IV displayed his love of the 2nd amendment when he shot and killed five girls aged 6-13 in an Amish schoolhouse in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, before committing suicide.
On April 16, 2007, gunlover Seung-Hui Cho celebrated his 2nd amendment freedoms by shooting 5 faculty members and 27 students at Virgina Tech before committing suicide. Gunlover Cho's gunshots wounded 17 other people; 6 more were injured when they jumped from second-story windows to escape the gun nut.
On February 14, 2008, gunlover Steven Kazmierczak exercised his 2nd amendment rights at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, United States, killing six and wounding eighteen. The gun nut shot himself.
On October 2, 2006, gunlover Charles Carl Roberts IV displayed his love of the 2nd amendment when he shot and killed five girls aged 6-13 in an Amish schoolhouse in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, before committing suicide.
On April 16, 2007, gunlover Seung-Hui Cho celebrated his 2nd amendment freedoms by shooting 5 faculty members and 27 students at Virgina Tech before committing suicide. Gunlover Cho's gunshots wounded 17 other people; 6 more were injured when they jumped from second-story windows to escape the gun nut.
On February 14, 2008, gunlover Steven Kazmierczak exercised his 2nd amendment rights at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, United States, killing six and wounding eighteen. The gun nut shot himself.
Socrtease
Verified User
Ok so maybe I was wrong. Maybe the safety of children and society is more important than individual rights. So in that vein, I propose reasonable restrictions on the poor having children. It is for their own good as well as the children. According to the federal government's Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) compared families with an annual income of under $15,000 to families with an annual income over $30,000. Their findings:
* Abuse is 14 times more common in poor families.
* Neglect is 44 times more common in poor families.
The study emphasized that the findings "cannot be plausibly explained on the basis of the higher visibility of lower income families to community professionals."[1]
Studies in which all the subjects are equally open to public scrutiny (groups made up entirely of welfare recipients, for example) show that those who abuse tend to be the "poorest of the poor."[2]
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3), September, 1996, Chapter 5, pp. 2-17; Summary: Chapter 8, pp.10-11.
2. e.g. Bernard Horowitz and Isabel Wolock, "Material Deprivation, Child Maltreatment and Agency Interventions Among Poor Families," in Leroy Pelton, ed., The Social Context of Child Abuse and Neglect (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1981), p.138.
So, I propose that we establish a test, to be taken by the poor, testing their ability to properly parent a child. Before you can take the test, we are going to need you to take a class which will be made available for a small fee. The classes will be Monday's and Wednesday's from 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm. No absences will be allowed and should you miss a class you will be dropped and can re-enroll at another time. After you have completed the test, an employee with state HHS will come to your house to inspect to insure that you have sufficient space and accommodations to bring a child into this world. When you have a child, you must register it with the appropriate state agency so that spot inspections can be made to determine that the child is not being neglected or abused. Anyone person living in poverty found to have an unregistered child will be arrested and the child seized and turned over to an appropriate couple for rearing.
These REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS on child rearing are soley for your own good and the good of all future children. Though the Supreme Court of the United States has said that having children is a fundamental liberty interest, they could not have intended that poor people bring children in to this world willy nilly and expose them to far greater risk of abuse and neglect than they would experience with parents of better socioeconomic class.
If my proposal were to be enacted, liberals would scream til they stroked. And rightly so. We don't do shit in this country like the above because kids are more like to be abused and neglected. We treat people on a case by case individual level, and never punish whole groups for the misdeeds of a few. At least we are not supposed to.
* Abuse is 14 times more common in poor families.
* Neglect is 44 times more common in poor families.
The study emphasized that the findings "cannot be plausibly explained on the basis of the higher visibility of lower income families to community professionals."[1]
Studies in which all the subjects are equally open to public scrutiny (groups made up entirely of welfare recipients, for example) show that those who abuse tend to be the "poorest of the poor."[2]
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3), September, 1996, Chapter 5, pp. 2-17; Summary: Chapter 8, pp.10-11.
2. e.g. Bernard Horowitz and Isabel Wolock, "Material Deprivation, Child Maltreatment and Agency Interventions Among Poor Families," in Leroy Pelton, ed., The Social Context of Child Abuse and Neglect (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1981), p.138.
So, I propose that we establish a test, to be taken by the poor, testing their ability to properly parent a child. Before you can take the test, we are going to need you to take a class which will be made available for a small fee. The classes will be Monday's and Wednesday's from 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm. No absences will be allowed and should you miss a class you will be dropped and can re-enroll at another time. After you have completed the test, an employee with state HHS will come to your house to inspect to insure that you have sufficient space and accommodations to bring a child into this world. When you have a child, you must register it with the appropriate state agency so that spot inspections can be made to determine that the child is not being neglected or abused. Anyone person living in poverty found to have an unregistered child will be arrested and the child seized and turned over to an appropriate couple for rearing.
These REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS on child rearing are soley for your own good and the good of all future children. Though the Supreme Court of the United States has said that having children is a fundamental liberty interest, they could not have intended that poor people bring children in to this world willy nilly and expose them to far greater risk of abuse and neglect than they would experience with parents of better socioeconomic class.
If my proposal were to be enacted, liberals would scream til they stroked. And rightly so. We don't do shit in this country like the above because kids are more like to be abused and neglected. We treat people on a case by case individual level, and never punish whole groups for the misdeeds of a few. At least we are not supposed to.
C
Cancel4
Guest
It seems to me we need to view these sad events as a crossroad for America. We should begin an open, dignified and caring national discussion of why our country, alone among leading nations, is the scene of so many mass shootings, and the 80 + gun deaths that occur daily.
We should look at the experiences of other western nations, all of which have far fewer per capita rates of gun homicides.
It is not helpful and saves no lives to utter trite expressions of sympathy for the losses of families at places like Columbine or Vigina Tech. It just confirms Republican and Democrat alike in destructive cowardice.
That's not the action that we need to solve one of America's most difficult problems.
Or, on the other hand, we can just continue to ignore the gun deaths as they pile up, and congratulate ourselves that at least we can resist the government with bullets if our party loses an election.
And, sooner or later, the shootings and woundings and maimings and killings will strike someone close to each and every one of us. Close to you, even.
And, then you'll know.
We should look at the experiences of other western nations, all of which have far fewer per capita rates of gun homicides.
It is not helpful and saves no lives to utter trite expressions of sympathy for the losses of families at places like Columbine or Vigina Tech. It just confirms Republican and Democrat alike in destructive cowardice.
That's not the action that we need to solve one of America's most difficult problems.
Or, on the other hand, we can just continue to ignore the gun deaths as they pile up, and congratulate ourselves that at least we can resist the government with bullets if our party loses an election.
And, sooner or later, the shootings and woundings and maimings and killings will strike someone close to each and every one of us. Close to you, even.
And, then you'll know.
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
C
Cancel4
Guest
In the United States, there are over 30,000 people killed each year with firearms, more than 80 people each day.
Of these deaths, approximately 39% are homicides, 57% are suicides and 4% are unintentional deaths or the cause is unknown.
In addition, guns injure over 60,000 Americans each year and are used on a daily basis to rob, intimidate and harass.
The reality is that guns are taking a deadly toll on our streets, in our homes and in our communities. In fact, we are by far the most violent society in the industrialized world.
In the war of symbols, guns reign supreme in America; meaning, owning a gun says more about your politics than how you use it.
Joan Burbick dissects the embracing of guns by the “gun rights movement”.
She cuts through to the heart of the psychology of guns, and how the gun rights movement has invented a fear campaign, that someone, the government, is going to take away their guns.
The symbolic meaning of owning a gun is to reclaim political power, demonize minorities, distort the issue of crime in America, and distract Americans from the real issues of democracy.
According to the gunlover lobby, we’re not a collective society, we’re a society of individuals who are best served by looking out for our own individual interests. And the gun rights movement seems to fit very snugly into that outlook.
Of these deaths, approximately 39% are homicides, 57% are suicides and 4% are unintentional deaths or the cause is unknown.
In addition, guns injure over 60,000 Americans each year and are used on a daily basis to rob, intimidate and harass.
The reality is that guns are taking a deadly toll on our streets, in our homes and in our communities. In fact, we are by far the most violent society in the industrialized world.
In the war of symbols, guns reign supreme in America; meaning, owning a gun says more about your politics than how you use it.
Joan Burbick dissects the embracing of guns by the “gun rights movement”.
She cuts through to the heart of the psychology of guns, and how the gun rights movement has invented a fear campaign, that someone, the government, is going to take away their guns.
The symbolic meaning of owning a gun is to reclaim political power, demonize minorities, distort the issue of crime in America, and distract Americans from the real issues of democracy.
According to the gunlover lobby, we’re not a collective society, we’re a society of individuals who are best served by looking out for our own individual interests. And the gun rights movement seems to fit very snugly into that outlook.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
This is the price of freedom. The founders knew it. the early american leaders knew it, and only real americans seem to know it now.
This is called projection. It is an attempt to point out your own fears and insecurities by attempting to place them on a opposite group of people based on the source of your fears.