Furry arrested for sex with animals

[Bocaj Claw]

I agree with Rooster. Mentioning Lichtenstein is offensive and just devolves the thread to name-calling.

[Jakkal]

I agree, it's taken a bad road ever since Germany was mentioned.

isn't it always that way?

[datherman]

[Rooster]

When I think of Germany I think of a proud people who produce awesome cars, drink lots of beer, and have a strange sense of humour.

When I think of Austria, I think of Hitler.

[Baconsticks]

Reminds me of something I read earlier today:

http://www.allaboutthegames.co.uk/featu ... le_id=9230

[Rooster]

That won't pass. The German people are too smart for that one.

[Jakkal]

That won't pass. The German people are too smart for that one.

meh, Germans are smart... but not German politicians...
I'm pretty sure it won't pass... although after the shooting of Winenden (15 got killed), most are blaming Counter Strike and such. noone really cares, that he was in a shooting club, excesising with the Beretta of his father. Or that his father got about 500 bullets (ready in magazines) in his house (that's why the boy could shoot about 300 rounds). There are elections in some months. Using this as a reason to promote their party. They even tried to ban Paint Ball. They're absolutly crazy about this. Instead of asking, WHY he was doing it, they try to ban the most easiest things.

[Dr. Sticks]

hell germany banned Red Bull because they thought it contained Cocaine (when in fact it contains coca extract, just like everything else in the world)

[Comrade K]

That won't pass. The German people are too smart for that one.

meh, Germans are smart... but not German politicians...
I'm pretty sure it won't pass... although after the shooting of Winenden (15 got killed), most are blaming Counter Strike and such. noone really cares, that he was in a shooting club, excesising with the Beretta of his father. Or that his father got about 500 bullets (ready in magazines) in his house (that's why the boy could shoot about 300 rounds). There are elections in some months. Using this as a reason to promote their party. They even tried to ban Paint Ball. They're absolutly crazy about this. Instead of asking, WHY he was doing it, they try to ban the most easiest things.

But that's how you get votes doncha know. BAN EVERYTHING. CHILDPROOF THE WORLD. CREATE A GUN REGISTRY CAUSE IT WORKED SO WELL HERE IN CANADA, SOLVING OR PREVENTING ALL OF NO CRIMES. VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES ARE THE CAUSE TOO OF COURSE. EVEN THOUGH PRACTICALLY EVERY ADOLESCENT BOY IN A FIRST WORLD NATION PLAYS THEM. AHHHHHH THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
(This message has been brought to by emotion overwhelming common sense.)

Hell I know how we can prevent mass shootings. Shoot back. You never hear about it on the news, but it is an effective strategy, and has worked a number of times

[Muninn]

I agree, it's taken a bad road ever since Germany was mentioned.

Don't mention the war, I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it all right.

[Bocaj Claw]

You’ll have to forgive him. He’s from Barcelona.

[Rooster]

Hell I know how we can prevent mass shootings. Shoot back. You never hear about it on the news, but it is an effective strategy, and has worked a number of times

And have every arsehole under the sun packing? No fecking ta, I prefer the UK way.

"But what about knife crime!?!" I hear pro-gun nuts say.

Always goes back to my main point of, you can run from a guy with a knife...but even Usain Bolt can't outrun a bullit. Letting people be armed CAN stop mass shootings, but I guaren-damn-tee that "spur-of-the-moment" shootings would go through the roof.

[Comrade K]

Hell I know how we can prevent mass shootings. Shoot back. You never hear about it on the news, but it is an effective strategy, and has worked a number of times

And have every arsehole under the sun packing? No fecking ta, I prefer the UK way.

"But what about knife crime!?!" I hear pro-gun nuts say.

Always goes back to my main point of, you can run from a guy with a knife...but even Usain Bolt can't outrun a bullit. Letting people be armed CAN stop mass shootings, but I guaren-damn-tee that "spur-of-the-moment" shootings would go through the roof.

Guns get smuggled anyway, as they have in the UK, and trying to outrun a bullet doesn't work, but sometimes having one of your own does, because people who are likely to shoot you are oh-so deterred by bans. It's like the guy in Alberta a couple years ago who killed four police officers. One of his rifles, which was registered, contributed some minimal amount to the investigation, and supporters of the registry touted this as proof the registry helped. The gun that actually killed the officers was a prohibited since the 70's automatic rifle, the banning of which didn't do much for the four police the illegal weapon killed. But that's just one example, and of course when it's pointed out people criticize it as an anomaly.

Secondly, in the US these "spur of the moment" shootings pretty much never happen amongst people with legal carry permits, because the people who can acquire said permits aren't just any random idiot, they do undergo background checks and the like. That argument gets thrown around constantly. "Wild West" "Blood in the Streets" etc. It makes a good argument as it gets people riled, but it doesn't actually occur: it's entirely fear-based, not fact-based. Typically, one big misconception is that "every arsehole under the sun" can just go out and get a carry permit. Not quite. People with concealed carry permits are amongst the most law-abiding of all people in the US. The idea that everyone can carry is a convenient scare tactic.
I'm going to use Florida as an example now, because it took care after introducing it's carry laws to keep record of what the people it licensed were doing. Out of the 1,520,000+ CCW licenses it gave out between 87 and 09, some 4800 were revoked later due to crime. 1 out of every 318 licenses was lost because the holder committed a crime. Any crime. The number of crimes involving firearms themselves amongst the million and half licenses overall? 167. Or in other words, a whopping 1 out of every 9100 licenses. Blood in the streets. Unfortunately the specifics of those events aren't given, but since threatening people with a weapon, or discharging it without actually hitting anybody are still crimes, I'm willing to bet that only a fraction of those 167 events in which the CCW holder committed a crime with their concealed weapon actually resulted in death or injury.
And there were a number of people whose application for a license was in fact denied, again showing that not just anyone could run out and get a permit to carry.
Here's the Florida data anyway, stats from other shall issue states are a bit harder to come by unfortunately, since Florida was one of the first to adopt a shall issue stance.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html



"The UK way" didn't seem to have stopped firearms crime from rising almost every year after the crack down on firearms back in 98. Of course, there never were that many gun crimes in the UK to begin with.
Socio-economic factors are what I see as the leading causes of this, not availability of firearms, nor the ability of law-abiding people without criminal records to carry them. The US has a lot of problems with poverty and the like, and that, more than anything else, is what I think has caused so much violence. There's one comparison in one of the essays I've linked, that makes note of how before there were any significant gun control laws in either the UK or US, the rates of gun crime were still substantially lower in the UK. You could carry a pistol unhindered in either, yet the UK was safer.


Anyway, I'll admit I don't buy the whole idea that allowing CCW or gun ownership drastically reduces crime, I can't even say that it reduces it at all. However, I do feel confident, after having read many articles and essays on this issue, that restricting the ability to own or carry firearms yields no positive effects either. Ultimately it comes down to rights. If carrying or ownership exacted a major cost to society, then I wouldn't support it, but if carrying or ownership are irrelevant or have even slightly negative effects on overall gun crime trends, I still think it should be the right of law-abiding individuals to chose to carry a means of defending themselves.
Given the choice between 100 murders and more rights, and 100 murders and fewer rights, I'll take more rights every time. No offense, but it seems Britain's heading in the completely opposite direction, by exploring ridiculous ideas that are meant to appease people looking for answers to violent crime in all the wrong places. There's even an article from the BBC talking about stopping the manufacture of knives with points on them, to reduce knife crime. What next? Covering all shovels and hammers with foam?
Why don't you find out what the reasons people have for killing each other, and address those. It's not nearly as politically convenient, not nearly as satisfying for angry mothers as banning objects, but I "guaren-damn-tee" that it will have the positive effects on violence that no politically motivated, ineffectual ban of a scape-goat object ever has.


Lastly, I'll admit something else. There are a lot of incredibly biased, angry and ignorant pro-gunners out there. They think guns are the way the truth and the light without ever really studying the question. But I think most anti-gun people are the same. They recoil with horror at the thought of allowing people to carry guns, without ever bothering to delve into the facts of the matter. I was against carrying firearms for defense at one point, then I read into the issue and changed my mind.
There's this quote I have that I always liked, though I can't remember who it's attributed to. I think it's fitting:
"It's important to remember that just because there are crooks, zealots and morons supporting a position, it does not automatically follow that the position is wrong."


Anyway, here's a link for further reading. It attacks the idea of gun control reducing crime without the usual angry conservative baggage that often surrounds such arguments. Instead it argues that the socio-economic factors I mentioned are what cause crime, and that firearms ownership is largely irrelevent.
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent. ... t=expresso

An older Statistics Canada file. Page 8 is the specific point of interest here, as it states:
"Two in three recovered handguns were not
registered
The data suggest that most firearms used in handgun-related
homicides were not registered and the suspects were not
licensed firearm users. Studies in other countries on firearm
use in homicides have reached similar conclusions"

And also this:
"In addition, 11% of suspects in solved handgun-related homicides possessed a
valid FAC or Firearms Licence; 49% of suspects did not; and,
in 41% of cases this information was not known."

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/8 ... 09-eng.pdf

Given the amount of information one has to provide to the government to get an FAC, I doubt many of the unknowns had one.
So the heavy restriction of handguns in Canada failed to stop most criminals from acquiring them anyway.

A newer Statistics Canada file on firearms crime.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/8 ... 02-eng.pdf

And another excerpt (Page 5):

"Canadian homicide data from 2003 to 2006 indicate that where
registration status was known, 7 in 10 fi rearms used to commit
homicide were reported by police to be unregistered.2 Among
persons accused of homicide, 27% were found to possess
a valid fi rearms license. Data from Australia show that most
fi rearms used to commit homicide are unlawfully held by
accused persons (Mouzos, 2000)."



And that's all I care to write for the moment. There was more, but I'm lazy. And pants proof-reading too.

[Liz]

How did this come from having sex with animals?

[Doc Sigma]

How did this come from having sex with animals?

See? NOTHING good ever comes from having sex with animals!