why anyone wants an "assault rifle"

Personally, I don't really have a problem with gun ownership. After reading through the threads, a few comments:

- The US is - generally - a more violent place than other OECD countries in general. It's not just limited to gun violence.

- Overall rates of violent crime in the US have been dropping fairly heavily since the early 1990s.

- We have far less robust social services than many other Western countries, so we have the whole poverty/crime/etc thing going on that contributes to violent crime.

- There are reasonable restrictions we could put in place now, that the majority of gun owners (and I *believe* even a majority of NRA members) would support: closing the loopholes involving private sales of firearms and gun shows, etc.

- There's WAY too much focus on 'assault rifles' or 'assault weapons', and a lot of DELIBERATE obfuscation involving these terms. Most people who are killed by guns die from handguns, not assault rifles. Also, things like AR-15s are not assault rifles, by definition. They cannot fire on full auto. Secondly, 'assault weapon' is also a somewhat bogus term, since things like the Brady Bill focused more on how a weapon 'looked' vs. how dangerous it actually was. If they actually banned things like AR-15s as 'assault weapons', you would STILL be able to go out and buy very powerful, long-range rifles that you could use to kill quite a few people. DC sniper, anyone?

- There's also been a lot of focus on the whole 'mentally ill' thing, like in New York I'm personally extremely aggravated at the New York law that was passed, which will have very negative consequences on mental health care in New York state and will probably make quite a few problems worse.

- Finally, to all the non-Americans who were making derisive comments about " 'murican" culture and not being able to handle weapons/toys/whatever etc etc etc: Stop it. Yes, the US has lots of problems, but the amount of "let's just bash the US just because" is pretty laughable. I mean, I'm sure that a few of us Americans could start going over the lack of free expression allowed in some of your countries, but it's irrelevant. Stick to the issue, yo.

I'd be curious how you'd come up with lack of free expression in Denmark.

I'd be curious as to where I specifically mentioned Denmark.

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
I'd be curious as to where I specifically mentioned Denmark.

I'd be curious as to where I mentioned that you mentioned that.

I'll take your answer as an indication that you can't state such a thing about Denmark, thanks.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'd be curious as to where I mentioned that you mentioned that.

I'll take your answer as an indication that you can't state such a thing about Denmark, thanks.

Well,

I'd be curious how you'd come up with lack of free expression in Denmark.

seems to heavily imply it, but since you asked (well, arrogantly dismissed):
http://www.dkdebat.dk/smartcms/sider…aragraffen.htm

Also, the trial of Geert Wilders, despite the fact he was acquitted, his comments were 'borderline' legal, which says enough as is.

Of course, I imagine your next response will be some whining about how people saying mean things to (or about) other people isn't "free speech" and thus can be punished.

<3, Dart! It's been fun

Nah, I'll refrain from responding and dragging this nothingness out. If you want to tell yourself Denmark can be compared unfavorably to the US in terms of freedom of expression, then may you continue to do so. I find it amusing

Welcome back, btw.

It's good to be back, dealing with people who find statements of fact amusing. ^_^

Oh, and to respond to you in kind: "I'll take your answer as an indication that you can't argue with what I stated about Denmark, thanks."

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
It's good to be back, dealing with people who find statements of fact amusing. ^_^

Oh, and to respond to you in kind: "I'll take your answer as an indication that you can't argue with what I stated about Denmark, thanks."

It wasn't your statement of "fact" that was amusing, but your interpretation of it

Let me guess, a quick google?

Still is amusing.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Perhaps a little history would be in order. You can even find this stuff in textbooks!

Dominant group of immigrants use an ethnic group of natives that their own forefathers suppressed as a symbolic representation of themselves in an argument to be allowed the right to defend the land that they stole from that ethnic group. That makes perfect sense, from a certain point of view.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
It wasn't your statement of "fact" that was amusing, but your interpretation of it

Let me guess, a quick google?

Still is amusing.

I googled for a direct link to the law, yes, since I don't have the criminal code of a foreign country in a foreign language memorized.

And since my "interpretation" is factual, we're back to you finding a statement of fact amusing. Come on, Dart. You can do better than this!

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
I googled for a direct link to the law, yes, since I don't have the criminal code of a foreign country in a foreign language memorized.

And since my "interpretation" is factual, we're back to you finding a statement of fact amusing. Come on, Dart. You can do better than this!

Factual interpretation?

Well, I don't think I can entertain better than that statement.

You win!

I win every time I talk to you, because I basically get to kick around a mentally disabled kid. ^_^

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
I win every time I talk to you, because I basically get to kick around a mentally disabled kid. ^_^

Don't be too rough on yourself - you're hardly a kid

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Don't be too rough on yourself - you're hardly a kid

Aw, diddums. You think you're clever. I do find it hilarious that you tried to 'throw down' and the second I actually referenced anything factual, you basically devolved back into your typical douchey, snide self. What's the matter, buttercup? The break up still hurting your insides? I'm sowwy <3

I found it in my heart to forgive you

At least you didn't pick the cheap route of the lesser man.

Hehe, cute.

I didn't know that automatons had hearts.

But honestly, Dart, since you obviously don't really care about any of the issues or to actually argue about the point that YOU raised (due to some form of cowardice or inability on your end), I'll bid you adieu and save my comments for … well, people worth my time. ^_^

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
I didn't know that automatons had hearts.

But honestly, Dart, since you obviously don't really care about any of the issues or to actually argue about the point that YOU raised (due to some form of cowardice or inability on your end), I'll bid you adieu and save my comments for … well, people worth my time. ^_^

You actually raised it as some kind of defense of your corrupt nation.

But you're right, I don't really care about the issue enough to carry a debate with you.

Not today, at least.

Oh, and yeah - it still hurts a bit to be alone. But I'm getting over it.

Are you going to be the impressive internet warrior and kick me a little more? That's something only few people would dare. What courage!

I didn't raise it as a defense of my 'corrupt' nation. I raised it as a point that we could all trash each other's various cultures and laws but that has nothing to do with the actual point. I'm glad your inability to properly read what other people have written hasn't changed in my absence, Dart.

Next time, though - if you don't care about the issue, how about not fucking replying, chief?

And lulz. Internet warrior? Courage? No, I just think you're a troll who - unfortunately for you - let something personal slip, so I'm going to take a dig at your emotional turmoil for 1) my own amusement and 2) petty revenge against your years of trolling and stupidity that I had to sit through.

But since you've admitted your own cowardice and inability to defend your own arguments - to the ignore pit with you! Bai!

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
I didn't raise it as a defense of my 'corrupt' nation. I raised it as a point that we could all trash each other's various cultures and laws but that has nothing to do with the actual point. I'm glad your inability to properly read what other people have written hasn't changed in my absence, Dart.

Next time, though - if you don't care about the issue, how about not fucking replying, chief?

And lulz. Internet warrior? Courage? No, I just think you're a troll who - unfortunately for you - let something personal slip, so I'm going to take a dig at your emotional turmoil for 1) my own amusement and 2) petty revenge against your years of trolling and stupidity that I had to sit through.

But since you've admitted your own cowardice and inability to defend your own arguments - to the ignore pit with you! Bai!

Yeah, you picked a specific example that's laughably inappropriate considering the countries in question. High level of ignorance factor, and I was just curious what you'd come up with to defend that statement. Let's just say a quick google with no actual research was exactly as impressive as I expected

I don't let things slip - I just don't have a problem being vulnerable. It's something that makes you much less emotionally unstable when carrying a debate.

Hiding your weaknesses makes them that much more powerful.

That's something you might actually learn from.

But, as I said, it's ok. After all this time - you're right back to being yourself as I remember you. I can't blame you for being what you are

I'll probably get over being in the ignore pit - though. I should be used to it by now!

Oh, just this once, I'll break protocol:

No, I'm not ignorant on the subject. Getting hauled in front of a court (facing fines and a 2 year jail sentence) for saying mean things about Muslims. Not exactly 'freedom of expression'.

I directly quoted the law in question, as well, which apparently is just me being ignorant. So, yeah, you can't defend your 'points' (which is why you've backed off from them repeatedly), and … like, I said, you're a troll. There's a reason why so many journalists and political figures condemned the Wilders case, even if they (rightfully so) think Geert is a bigoted prat.

So no, Dart, my example was not 'laughably inappropriate'. The only thing laughably inappropriate is your pathetic and puerile attempts to defend yourself.

So, for the second time in recent memory, Dart: Welcome to Dumpsville. Population: You.