ImaginaryN

Registered bored user

ImaginaryN wrote:
A teacher with a gun just becomes the first casualty in these scenarios. 

A teacher is there to teach, not to be on guard during school hours just in case a bad guy shows up. So when the bad guy unexpectedly does show up, the teacher gets it before even having the chance to react.

Also military and police regularly come up against armed bad guys and have the experience and knowledge to deal with it. A teacher would likely never encounter a bad guy, ever, and would likely therefore be ineffective if a shooting were to occur. I haven't hit a golf ball in about 3 years and I sure as shit wouldn't bet my life on getting it on the green in one if I walked straight onto the course now.

What happens if an unarmed student decided to tackle the teacher during an intense moment, takes the gun. Then you have an opportunist armed maniac who didn't even have to go to the trouble of buying a gun or getting it into the school.

What if an unarmed student attacks the teacher? Is the teacher worried that the student may take the gun? Does the teacher shoot AN UNARMED CHILD first to protect themselves and the rest of the kids??
 
Arming teachers is just insane, and the reaction to Trump's suggestion in Europe is one of sheer and comprehensive disbelief.

Where the hell does it end?? Give everyone a gun at birth? 
ImaginaryN wrote:
I doubt it unfortunately, the Right will probably call her mentally unstable and put a gun in her hand.
ImaginaryN wrote:
moldysod it's sad how paranoid and terrified you are. Why not travel to Europe and you'll see you are talking absolute bollocks.
ImaginaryN wrote:
captkangaroo Such as?...in most of Europe and Australia, for instance, where guns have essentially been banned, what other ways have native lunatics used to murder scores of people  in mass killings on a regular basis since gun bans came in??

And if for a second we detach ourselves from reality and go along with what you're saying, what in the name of Christ is so wrong with your country that you have on average one mass killing a week?? What makes Americans do this when people in other countries aren't?

You either accept guns cause these events, or you accept your country, your society, the 'American dream', is so broken, unfair and misguided that it makes people hell bent on killing dozens of people, usually friends and acquaintances, on a regular basis. Which is it??

Either way it needs some serious fundamental changes to put right, more social inclusion, welfare, safety nets, better education and opportunities, and less of the typical 'every man for himself' sink or swim attitude.
ImaginaryN wrote:
We have mental illness in the UK. We just can't buy guns. We don't have mass shootings. Can someone with a PhD please help me see some kind of correlation here?
ImaginaryN wrote:
moldysod Deflection, nice tactic, my 9 year old uses it too.

Check the statistics mate, the rate of rape in the US and the rate of knife crime is largely comparable to the UK. So if we have a problem, you definitely have a problem. 

Any comment on the actual point though?



ImaginaryN wrote:
5cats Show me a law that will stop the next mass shooting? You're joking right, what about the laws the UK and Australia passed after they had a mass shooting and subsequently haven't had one since? 

I don't really give a fuck, I live a long way away where my kids go to school and I know they aren't going to get shot and killed. It's a nice feeling, you might like to try it some time.

All I'm.saying is with each mass shooting in your country, the continued rhetoric used to protect gun ownership is making your country a bigger and bigger laughing stock on the world stage. And your continued blasè attitude towards children getting shot is like something out of the fucking third world. 
ImaginaryN wrote:
I'm not sure that there is another civilised country which is so utterly afraid of itself than America is.

The second amendment, forgive me if I'm wrong, was created for the sole purpose or maintaining an armed militia to protect from foreign invaders 250 years ago when America was still a fairly 'new' country.

This seems to have been bastardised to then mean citizens can bear arms to protect not from foreign invaders but from their own government!!

The militia bit has been lost over the years and now Americans just see it as an all encompassing right to own and carry a weapon which is totally and utterly not in keeping with what the constitution says. How can you want to protect the constitution so badly when you essentially purposefully misinterpret and twist it for personal gain. Bizarre.

The French went through something similar, around the same time, during their revolution. The citizens rose up against the aristocracy and the ruling few, stole all the guns and ammo they could lay their hands on, killed a load of people and overthrew the oppression of the governing classes.

After that happened they rewrote their constitution, but funnily enough, didn't write in a right to bear arms so that they could do it all over again. They had faith in the people, in each other and in the democratic process. They weren't scared. 

America could learn a thing or two from that.
ImaginaryN wrote:
Guys, the answer must be 1. There are only two terms to the equation '6', and '2(1+2)'. You are being asked to divide one term by the other. 

The way you get 9 is to somehow create a third term here, and ending up with '6', '2' and '3'. But that is not what the question is asking you.

shoot me down if I'm wrong, but if we were to replace the numbers with letters, a=6, b=2 and c=1.

We have a /  b(c+b) = a / (bc + bb)  =  6 / 6

a / b(c+b) does not equal  a / (bc x bb) does it? If you are expanding the brackets (parenthesis), which you clearly are, I don't see how the correct answer can be 9.

In fact, if you expand the parenthesis and then incorrectly ignore them entirely (which you 9ers are doing), you would get 7 surely?...

a/ b(c+b)  =  a / bc + bb  =  6 / 2 + 4  =  7
ImaginaryN wrote:
monkwarrior I can't see this sum any other way to you! the 2(1+2) is definitely one whole 'thing' as far as I'm concerned, and above is precisely how I would have written it out. Making 9 seems just, well, wrong.
ImaginaryN wrote:
I think the boos were mostly tongue in cheek. Believe it or not Trumps address in Davos actually got a fairly positive response here in the UK. I don't like the guy at all, he's as sincere as any good businessman, he tells whatever audience he is in front of what they want to hear. But yeah, Europe lapped the speech up.

However we also questioned the statistics he brought out, with speculation that much of the growth in the US was started by the previous administration given the guy has only been in office for a year, and also that the year on year growth and unemployment figures weren't actually the best they have been despite trump insisting they are. 

But one thing everyone knows, Trump isn't about facts. He says what he believes to be fact and is persuasive enough to get people to believe him. And if people believe every word you say, who needs facts anyway. When he says 'there's a tremendous spirit in the US, it's a spirit like I have never seen before' its a vague, unquantifiable comment, but one which is emotive and essentially good enough for most people to believe that he is creating eutopia. A politician with too much charisma is a dangerous one in my opinion.


ImaginaryN wrote:
monkwarrior but my point is you don't need to necessarily even look that  far back if you don't want to. The evidence for evolution is here right now, and is ongoing. You have to make a conscious choice to ignore it.
ImaginaryN wrote:
I can't see how anyone can really argue with evolution, it really is a secular discussion. 

Evolution has been happening for hundreds of years before our eyes, except humans have been accelerating it at super speed. Maybe that's why it doesn't look like evolution?

Look at how we breed animals to select certain traits or advantages, breed plants to create resistances or improve their crop etc etc, manipulate viruses and genes, these are all examples of evolution which has been forced. And it's been going on for hundreds of years with relatively simple processes.

Is it really that much of a leap of faith that these HUGE changes that humans have made in plants and animals, could have happened naturally, on a much much smaller scale over a much much longer period of time? I don't think so.

And it certainly demonstrates that it is a credible possibility at the very least.

And remember, that is ignoring in its totality the vast scientific evidence of prehistoric evolution which seems to be a matter of dispute amongst some.

ImaginaryN wrote:
So there are many conventions for this, but I know you Americans like to go renegade when using the English language.

'Best' or 'Regards' are both abbreviations and actually make no sense at all. They are both sloppy and lazy.

'With kind regards', 'with best regards', both fine on an email or letter to people you know. Or 'many thanks'. 

'Yours sincerely' is much more formal but again perfectly acceptable.

If you've written a formal email or letter addressed to 'Dear Sirs' etc then you should use 'yours faithfully'. 

For friends and family, there are no rules! 'See you later you lanky streak of piss' will do just fine!

Just my opinion!!
ImaginaryN wrote:
Hmmmm he was a police officer in a public role, but yet had personalised his work equipment by adding 'you're fucked' on the side. Great example.

Will he really never forgive himself? Or will he have tallied up another 'bad guy' on his scoreboard?
ImaginaryN wrote:
People trying to maintain that the middle east have always been the enemy as justification for the millions of civilian deaths are a living breathing example how the novel 1984 and 'Minitruth' is extremely close to reality right now.

The middle east has been raped by the West, invaded constantly since the Crusades, and subsequently for oil since the turn of the 20th century. They are quite rightly fed up with it.

As for 'regime change', yes parts of the middle east are viewed as barbaric compared to modern western values.

But it wasn't so long ago that the US for instance was involved in industrial slavery and atrocities against black people of Africa and the Caribbean.

How would YOU feel if your country as a whole was attacked and invaded by say Canada and millions of your citizens were slaughtered because Canada felt you needed a regime change back then?? You would never forgive them, notwithstanding whether you ultimately believed slavery was right or wrong.

We have bombed the middle east for so long now, killed people's wives, husbands,  children, parents, bombed schools,  hospitals,  places of work, turning thriving communities into absolute rubble. 

And when a man who has suffered all of the above at the hands of the West has the audacity to come to the West and asks if he can find work because there's nothing left for him at home, the answer is a bid resounding 'no, fuck you, piss off back to where you came from!'.

And then we scratch our heads in bemusement at how these people become radicalised terrorists against the West. 

Fucking shameful. We should truly be ashamed.
ImaginaryN wrote:
Thing is, at some point Iran, and everywhere else in the world, IS going to need to have nuclear reactors, for the simple reason that they will need power and we cannot have developing nations using fossil fuels the way we did in the industrial revolution, because then, well, we're all dead.

So what needs to be fixed is the global problem of why people want to throw nuclear bombs at each other in the first bloody place, not condescendingly and patronisingly tell all these other countries that 'you know, you just can't be trusted with these, so we're going to just keep them locked away in the cupboard until you're old enough', while simultaneously waving our own nuclear reactors in their faces singing 'na na na naaa naaaaaa'.
ImaginaryN wrote:
More guns = less homicides?

The US has a homicide rate which is more than 5 times higher than the UK. The US public own about a quarter of a billion guns (112 guns per 100 people), the UK public own next to none (6 per 100 people).

So, can you please explain how on earth you can arrive at the above conclusion?


ImaginaryN wrote:
5cats I've seen this argument do many times and it makes NO sense.

If Chicago banned the sale of toasters, but the rest of the country continued selling them, do you think that everyone's home would suddenly be toasterless? No, because the rest of country hasa billion toasters and they can just get one elsewhere. 

Until there is a nationwide ban and an amnesty for everyone, there will be no difference. A regional ban will not reduce gun crime because guns are ubiquitous throughout the rest of the country
ImaginaryN wrote:
I can't speak for other countries, but after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987, the UK government passed the the Firearms (amendment) Act 1988, which BANS the ownership of semi-automatic rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).

After the Dunblane shootings of 1996, the goverment passed the Firearms (amendment) Act 1997 which BANS all handguns from private ownership.

People in the UK can still own shotguns for hunting, but the guns have to be fully licenced, and if stored at home, must be kept in a locked gun case, and the ammunition has to be kept in a totally separate locked cabinet.

Guess what, we don't have mass shootings.

In the US, statistically you guys have a mass shooting every single day of the week, with something like 11,500 people killed by guns this year already.

You guys see it as just 'one of those things', blasé in the same way as people become blasé about road deaths. But year on year there are safety improvements in vehicles and pedestrian safety. We are moving into an age of driverless vehicles which will slash road deaths. People are CONSTANTLY looking to improve road safety.

What the FUCK are America doing to improve 'gun safety'? Literally nothing, because too many people love the 'freedom' to own a gun. Its perverse, the obsessions with 'freedom'.

I don't call living in fear of being shot every day or your life, worrying about sending your kids to school in case they get massacred, I don't that freedom, I would call it quite the opposite.

This subject comes up quite a lot on pan-atlantic forums and descends into choas each time, because literally, we Europeans cannot even begin to understand why you are all so precious about keeping a bloody gun, when literally tens of thousands of men woman and children are dying each year as a direct result. it's sheer lunacy, and the ferocity with which you defend the 'right to bear arms' cannot help but make us look at you in pity in many ways. Sorry, but it's true.
ImaginaryN wrote:
5cats I can't speak for other countries, but after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987, the UK government passed the the Firearms (amendment) Act 1988, which BANS the ownership of semi-automatic rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).

After the Dunblane shootings of 1996, the goverment passed the Firearms (amendment) Act 1997 which BANS all handguns from private ownership.

People in the UK can still own shotguns for hunting, but the guns have to be fully licenced, and if stored at home, must be kept in a locked gun case, and the ammunition has to be kept in a totally separate locked cabinet.

Guess what, we don't have mass shootings.

In the US, statistically you guys have a mass shooting every single day of the week, with something like 11,500 people killed by guns this year already.

You guys see it as just 'one of those things', blasé in the same way as people become blasé about road deaths. But year on year there are safety improvements in vehicles and pedestrian safety. We are moving into an age of driverless vehicles which will slash road deaths. People are CONSTANTLY looking to improve road safety.

What the FUCK are America doing to improve 'gun safety'? Literally nothing, because too many people love the 'freedom' to own a gun. Its perverse, the obsessions with 'freedom'.

I don't call living in fear of being shot every day or your life, worrying about sending your kids to school in case they get massacred, I don't that freedom, I would call it quite the opposite.

This subject comes up quite a lot on pan-atlantic forums and descends into choas each time, because literally, we Europeans cannot even begin to understand why you are all so precious about keeping a bloody gun, when literally tens of thousands of men woman and children are dying each year as a direct result. it's sheer lunacy, and the ferocity with which you defend the 'right to bear arms' cannot help but make us look at you in pity in many ways. Sorry, but it's true.
ImaginaryN wrote:

It was interesting how a debate about something purely physical, the shape of an object,  descended into a religious argument! 

I personally believe there is an abundance of direct and indirect evidence regarding the moon landings. I think it's poor science to say we don't have the technology to land on the moon and interpret that as a reduction in technological or scientific advancement. People are going into space routinely. The ISS is evidence that we can routinely fly humans into space, dock with an arbitrary object, and then come home again. That technology is built upon the apollo missions, which remember although they achieved their goal *sometimes*, we're extraordinarily unreliable, whereas space travel now is not. We have built upon the technology developed in the 50s and it's very shortsighted to think that this current reliable technology of building inhabitable satellites in space etc sprang out of nowhere! And if you accept that it didn't spring out of nowhere, then you must accept the technology was there decades ago, and coupled with the contemporaneous evidence and subsequent photographic evidence from varying sources, I find it hard to imagine anyone of any intelligence maintains that it didn't happen.

As for evidence of God and jesus. There is no documented evidence of God or of Jesus' spiritual and omnipresent existence. None.

The only evidence you have are beliefs of others and your own non tangible belief.

If that is the kind of evidence that you consider has credence above all others, then your mind will by definition never be changed.

But that is not the mind of a scientist, that is not how scientists or rational objective people think. 

I would be genuinely interested to hear the evidence you have regarding the existence of God,  I really would. But is it something as plain as as photograph or something that can be measured in any way, is it something observable or something which can be put to a test in a scientific way? Can you show it to me?

Or is it vague, or is it wrapped up in am enigma that somehow makes it unaccessible for a 'non believer'?r
ImaginaryN wrote:
Just sort yourselves out a decent national health service like most civilised countries and be done with it!
ImaginaryN wrote: So I take it you consider the death sentence should be the appropriate sentence for anyone convicted of robbery? Because that's what you're saying.....I think that even the ancient Muslims in the middle east would consider that a bit harsh....they only used to chop robber's hands off. I love how America makes out to be so civilised and advanced, when the reality is, you scratch the surface and there's immature barbarism running right down to the core. If only you cared enough about anything outside of your own borders to realise what the entire rest of the world thinks of you.
ImaginaryN wrote: I watched that with an entirely straight face. I literally can only assume that the title of the post was supposed to be some form of a sarcastic put down??