Oh, I'm quite aware of that, thank you. Your point? That you're a misleading, fact ignoring, circular argument pushing, meme quoting, blind follower of things which aren't really very wonderful. And more specifically, the point is to demonstrate that your anecdotal stories (this one in particular) tries to paint Japan as a place where the incarceration rate must be high due to judicial tactics. Answer this, halfwit: If Japan is incarcerating the wrong people, and incarcerating so few, then why is their crime rate so low? And where are all the Japanese murders taking place in the absence of guns that you're so inclined to publicize (i.e by cars, trucks, trains and buses, knives, spoons and bottle caps, etc.)? May I refer you to this chart as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate |
|
|
|
Pretend it's Japan. Imagine what would happen to the economy in Japan if cars, trucks, trains and buses were banned. Now imagine what would happen to Japan's economy if guns were banned. Japan has already had guns banned for a long time you halfwit. I think that may have been his point. But of course, I believe he played the "No isolated island nations" card once when discussing historical anarchies... And I truly doubt the gun ban is the determining factor in Japan's crime rate... I'd say police practices and societal structure play a much larger part: The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.
Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.
Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.
Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.
For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.
In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.
The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally. I'll refer you to this, since you can't do it yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate . Locate within the chart the position and incarceration rate of Japan vs. the incarceration rate of other nations, notably that of the U.S. |
|
|
|
Pretend it's Japan. Imagine what would happen to the economy in Japan if cars, trucks, trains and buses were banned. Now imagine what would happen to Japan's economy if guns were banned. Japan has already had guns banned for a long time you halfwit. No shit, you dimwitted dumbshit (see boldfaced item in quote above). Now, try answering the question. What happens (as in what did happen) to the Japanese economy by virtue of banning guns? And then explain what would happen if cars, trucks, trains, and buses were banned. And, if after reflection, you still wish to pull the "well let's ban cars" argument to support gun rights, then by all means, continue to do so to display the fact that you only have three or four brain cells in operation inside your cranium. |
|
|
|
A tree cannot be charged for murder if it falls on a person, as it did not intent to do so, for it cannot think--however, if the tree fell because someone rigged it to fall, it can be a murder weapon. We need to ban trees large enough to kill people.  Therefor, only people with idle hands can kill people. But hands can't be idle if they're busy working  We need to put a ban on thoughts. And the following is a series of silliness: Medicine kills people. We need to abolish medicine. Lack of oxygen kills people. We need a ban on lack of oxygen. People die in hospitals. Coincidence? I think not. We need to banish people from hospitals, and people dying in hospitals will drop to 0. Gravity kills people. We need to live in space. Hot temperatures kill people. We need to ban Mexico. Cold temperatures kill people. We need to abolish Canada. Not eating kills people. But that cuts into profits so we'll leave this one alone. Getting hit by motor vehicles kill people. This one also cuts into profits, so this one stays. Butter knives in the eye kill people. We need to ban butter knives from getting into eyes. Jumping up and down too long and overexerting yourself kills people. We need to ban exercise. Diving and then flying kills people. We need to banish the ocean and the sky. Pollution kills people. Good luck banning this one! Ha ha ha! Excessive amounts of fluoride kill people. See above. Having pianos falling on you kills people. We need to abolish black and white films. A lack of pirates creates a hotter planet and that kills people. We need to abolish lack of pirates. Being heartbroken metaphorically kills people. We need to abolish teen romance. And last but not least, living kills people. We need a ban on pregnancy. It would be best if you didn't speak and put your foot in your mouth over and over. Let's go back to cars. Pretend it's Japan. Imagine what would happen to the economy in Japan if cars, trucks, trains and buses were banned. Now imagine what would happen to Japan's economy if guns were banned. |
|
|
|
I don't know guys. I think anarchy is like communism. It sounds great on paper, but doesn't scale well beyond a commune. Anarchy is everything you enjoy in life, and violence is the opposite. Personally I might do well in an anarchy. But make no mistake I would organize an army and take what I want. I would charge you tribute or burn your village, take slaves, etc. Join me and be with the strong! In exchange for your unwavering obedience and occasional military service I will allow you to live in peace. Gota love anarchy! What you describe is not "anarchy," but an attempt (by you) to set up a state. Which is exactly what anarchy allows and encourages and makes necessary. |
|
|
|
I don't know what kind of close minded, dumb ass views you have. But they seem pretty damn ridiculous from where I'm sitting.
+1000. Someone else finally calls myrkul out with his meme repeating nonsense about muggings. |
|
|
|
The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.
More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check. Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings? I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless. I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings? Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun? Tired old argument that doesn't really hold up. Like someone else said, go somewhere else then. Somalia awaits. And don't let the back door hit you on the way out. Need help? Maybe you could solicit some donations here to help you get some coach airfare to Somalia. |
|
|
|
I think this whole conversation is openended and I thought the input of information was relevant, but I didn't ask the questions so I can't be too sure how usefull it was to the asker but objectivly the information was usefull none the less.
The information myrkul provided was to try and show how cars and guns are the same, which is very far from the truth. Thus the importance of discerning how each contributes to the economy. Let's try this again. Consider a ban on cars, trucks, buses and knives. What happens? |
|
|
|
You asked what people used cars for. I gave you some examples. But how does that address the content of my post? Answer: it doesn't. It specifically answered one of the questions you posed. I'm sorry you're not happy with the answer, but I assume you're accustomed to that disappointment by now. I asked three questions in that post. You attempted to answer one of the questions I asked by avoiding what people really use cars for on a daily basis. I think that demonstrates your argumentative tactics, and dismisses you as anyone to take seriously. |
|
|
|
You asked what people used cars for. I gave you some examples. But how does that address the content of my post? Answer: it doesn't. |
|
|
|
CIA can tap into many smart phone microphones and especially iPhones. Nothing is private anymore, whether it's the government listening in on you or a conscious soul, matters not. Everything everyone does is forever known by everyone.
Nothing is private, just letting y'all know, we're all connected. Conscious observers (spirits) are everywhere.
But why is it that you single out the government as being the scary component here? All the unpleasant stuff that happens to people is due to colleagues, neighbors, media, employers and corporations exposing your actions, resulting in job loss, reputation loss, embarrassment, humiliation, etc. Are you familiar with the recent Twitter/Python job losses which happened yesterday? Get a clue: the government is not your worry. It's everyone else. |
|
|
|
Guns are a tool just like a car...or a chainsaw!
Been absorbing NRA memes a little too much without thinking for yourself? You can think too if you try! What do people use cars for? What happens to the economy when all cars (and trucks) are no longer available for use? |
|
|
|
I wouldn't ever willingly spend money on living somewhere where democracy decides what the rules are.
Interesting. No doubt you live somewhere. You pay rent? You own property? In both cases, you're spending money to live somewhere. Where is that? Or do you just live with your parents or bum off of a friend or family member? Or do you live in a cave? |
|
|
|
Are you aware of the history between myrkul and I? Probably not. Don't make our fight yours.
And have your insults ever done more than display your inability to discuss rationally the topics in which you are emotionally invested? No, I think not. Actually, my insults of you were and are a direct reflection of the absurdity and naivete of your views. You made a statement implying that being held financially liable for damages equates to actual compensation to victims. Change your tune, and I'll change my observations of you. Insults do not change minds. Rational discussion does. Prove my ideas wrong, and I will discard them. Insult me or them, and I will understand that you are incapable of doing more than flailing around on the ground like a child. You deserve insulting simply by your demand that I prove your claim wrong. I don't need to prove your claim wrong, as that is work for me that I didn't sign up for. Honest questions: Do you honestly get off insisting something that is obviously not true just because it fits your political belief? Do you actually believe the crap you say? Simple fact: victims are not always compensated just because the courts say someone needs to pay them. And if they are compensated, it's rarely in a timely matter, nor in full. |
|
|
|
The only reason people accept government is because the idea has been indoctrinated into them through public education over generations.
Governments are a natural consequence of society and no existing government. They form because people want structure, uniformity, and protection, and there are those who are motivated to fill the roles in the presence of a vacuum. |
|
|
|
Are you aware of the history between myrkul and I? Probably not. Don't make our fight yours.
And have your insults ever done more than display your inability to discuss rationally the topics in which you are emotionally invested? No, I think not. Actually, my insults of you were and are a direct reflection of the absurdity and naivete of your views. You made a statement implying that being held financially liable for damages equates to actual compensation to victims. Change your tune, and I'll change my observations of you. |
|
|
|
You're fucking stupid.
You are so ridiculously naive, it's pathetic.
I understand we aren't going to solve the on-going debate between collectivism and individualism in this thread, or push understanding of the difference between society and government. However, it is enjoyable to debate the details and refine our understanding, until it resorts to this. To sum it up, we have several fine thinkers in this thread. And then this one...  Pretty much  I never understood people that spend more time insulting the person they are responding to than actually progressing the argument. Perhaps because the stupid person needs to be made aware of the stupidity of his claims and/or statements? If that's your goal you are doing a poor job. People don't respond well to emotional and personal attacks--it doesn't make them realize they hold stupid beliefs but usually only hardens their position. I know from experience because I used to believe some stupid things. It wasn't ad hominems that changed my mind, it was rational discussion and friendly discourse which prompted further research of my own. Are you aware of the history between myrkul and I? Probably not. Don't make our fight yours. |
|
|
|
You're fucking stupid.
You are so ridiculously naive, it's pathetic.
I understand we aren't going to solve the on-going debate between collectivism and individualism in this thread, or push understanding of the difference between society and government. However, it is enjoyable to debate the details and refine our understanding, until it resorts to this. To sum it up, we have several fine thinkers in this thread. And then this one... Pretty much I never understood people that spend more time insulting the person they are responding to than actually progressing the argument. Perhaps because the stupid person needs to be made aware of the stupidity of his claims and/or statements? |
|
|
|
|
The other thread awaits (linked to above). Give it a shot. How hard could it be?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
