Jump to content

chocolat steve

Board Sponsors
  • Posts

    12285
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    175

Everything posted by chocolat steve

  1. I haven't visited the General Discussion area for quite some time and like everyone was truly sorry to have heard the most unfortunate news. I'd like to echo the sentiments to JS and pardon me if I also include my prayers (I know the general feeling against religion on here but I'm the son of a Deacon, can't help it ) as well. Whie going through the 22 some odd posts, I was waiting for the one or two that always seem to show up that have no clue and I was not disappointed. JS, please disregard them, those persons obviously have other issues going on in their lives that makes them vent it out on your misfortune. I feel badly that it takes something like this for me to join some of the others when I say I'd love to meet you, shake your hand and share a drink (of your choice). Maybe discuss a little football as we do in the sports thread. I admire your bravery and be assured that your post has not fallen on deaf ears. The life you saved may very well have been my own as I will now be extremely careful in my relationships. Others would have retreated in self pity and you showed great character and humanitarianism in trying to help others in your plight. Take care, thank you and all the very best. Steve
  2. That stance from Utah is more libertarian than conservative. There is an old joke that defines a libertarian as a republican who wants to smoke pot. Libertarians are strongly in favor of civil liberties and personal freedom. Some of the more die hard ones believe just about everything should be legal and allowable. I have some libertarian tendencies but my line is a bit closer to everyone else's than most of them. What you can do to defend yourself has changed. Not sure if its the law but I know it was bellieved (or could be urban legend) that if you shoot someone near your property line and that person falls over it dead its manslaughter or worse for you. Or if someone breaks into your home and while inside your home you shoot the person, injure them and then shoot them a second time and kill them its murder because they were not a threat after the first shot. Technically I can see the reasoning but if in that type of situation you are scared and frightened and you may shoot out of a need to feel secure as crazy as that sounds.
  3. I'd still maintain its cutlural. In an absolute sense, yes, a place that has guns gives one human another one more means of committing murder than one with out. However, without knowing the stats (too lazy to look it up) I'd be shocked if Finland's and Switzerland's murder rate (2 countries with guns) were higher than England's. Plenty of states in the U.S. that like Montana, the Dakotas, etc. where guns are plentiful, primarily for hunting I'd guess which have a very very low crime rate. Probably lower than England's. Various factors, socio-economic factors decide crime rates, not just the availability of guns. I can almost guarantee you if you lived in certain parts of the southern U.S. or the midwest you'd feel as safe as anywhere in England. You would forget that guns were legal and that everyone had until hunting season. You don't even think about it.
  4. I don't diagree with the fact that guns in a home will increase the chances of bad things happen. Are there any stats on guns that were used as deterrant and stopped crimes? I've heard it said its more than we think and its under reported. Not sure how accurate that is but I've heard pro gun advocates discuss it. Still, its a right we have and like other rights it carries a burden as well when misused.
  5. We can only hope...hehehehe...sorry, had to do a little payback for the anti yank stuff..joking of coure. I keep saying this but America is so vast and the different areas where guns are plentiful have different aspects to them. I grew up in an area that had a lot of guns...legally and illegally (inner city) and I went to uni in an area (small town deep south) that had just as many guns and my sense of personal safety was complete opposites. I would suggest the state where I went to school had the same sense of safety one would have in Switzerland or Finland where guns are plentiful. Guns are a local issue, that's why NYC has one of the strictest gun contol laws and Mississippi doesn't. Its now known that this guy was detrmined. Guns made his need to kill a lot of people easier but he would have found other means if he was denied a gun permit. Home made bombs, serin or some other kind of chemical weapon, would have done as much if not more damage. You can't deter a determined killer. Tim McVeigh...Bin Laden...didn't need a gun. They use machetes in parts of Africa and wipe out small villages with them. Agree its cultural though. Maybe one day it will change but right now its too imbedded in our culture. Interesting thing is there are expat Brits at my local pub where I watch football games and more than a few of them are proud gun owners and never thought they would be. Some of them don't own a gun or ever will but chose to live here and do not feel threatened by the plethora of guns in the states versus the dearth of them in England. State of mind maybe but its how it is.
  6. The problem is the NRA lobby. They see any infringement as a first step for a ban. Personally I think the present laws needs to be enforced as well as restrictions on certain things like assault weapons, better screening, perhaps some sort of compromise on the doctor/patient privelege when a patient is diagnosed as dangerous to himself and/or others.
  7. It is the price. But the one thing that is also apparant is like a lot of things, until it happens in rich suburbs like Columbine, no one takes notice. Guns have been a problem in inner city schools way before Columbine. The HS (and even the Junior high now) in my old neighborhood had metal detectors for a long time. Routine locker checks yielded all kinds of weaponry. Gangs in LA had shootings on school campuses long before Columbine. The 'bordega'(puerto rican corner grocers) owners in my old neighborhood all walked around with holstered guns in plain view. Served a purpose to tell anyone that thought about robbing them that, to think twice about it. But as I said, some regions have guns everywhere, like in the rural deep south and its a peaceful society. If you ever go hunting, there is a deep respect for another hunter when you come across them in the woods. You may be hunting in his area and you are both very respectful and you move on. Both of you have guns and everyone makes sure that tempers never get to the level that would make it escalate to firing on each other. You make small talk, talk about where the game is and ain't and its a healthy respect for another armed person.
  8. I don't know the rules that govern psychiatry but some say that if they were to put people who were deemed mentally unstable to be put on the list of those who should not be issued gun permits. They site it as a violation of doctor/patient confidentiality. Anyone know if they must report them if they are deemed likely to cause public harm? Its also a regional issue. Republicans do well in traditional democratic areas like western PA and Michigan if they use the 'they'll take your guns away' tactic because hunting is a huge part of the culture there.
  9. The NRA fights tighter gun controls. The NRA needs to be reigned in my opinion. They won't concede any kind of regulation as they see it as a step toward total a ban. If the American people want a total ban so be it. Polls show that Americans want tighter controls not an outright ban. Certain assault weapons, etc. are reasonable restrictions in my opinion and most americans, even a lot of gun owners, who only want something to protect their property and family or be able to hunt game.
  10. Whatever the real numbers are its still not at the point where Americans as whole want them totally banned. Likely the rules tightened. There may come a day when the numbers are not acceptable, till then its accepted as a cost of keeping that right.
  11. Every society weighs a right to have firearms and its sense of security. England, Oz and europe made their choice. America made there's. 200 million guns and 5,000 deaths attribued to guns if that is correct. 5k dead is NEVER good but its a number American society can apparantly live with. It may change in the future, who knows. But right now Americans want the right.
  12. ...again, but louder HOW DO YOU BAN GUNS SUCCESSFULLY IN THE UNITED STATES? All well and good someone wants to ban guns in the U.S. but its another to actually have a solution. The post about Americans exporting their 'culture'? Thousands of Americans have been visiting LOS for years and have moved there? Is LOS now a 'wild west' with Americans there extolling everyone to have guns and have made the country more violent? Sorry but that post went over my head. America is a huge country. Its like mutliple countries in one. Any country of size is like that: Russia, China, India for example. There are places in America that are more peaceful than England, Oz or Germany, some much more violent. I went to school in a small southern college town where I lost my apartment key and my door stayed unlocked all semester and I had no concern that anyone would break in at all and no one did. Friends knew it was unlocked. My neighborhood in Philly was the opposite. Most people had at least 2 or 3 locks on the door and bars on windows. America is homogenous in a few things such as how its view on its rights for instance, but its a country that is extremely diverse as well, both in its people and culture. Those that have this homogenous view of America as if we all think the same and its the same everywhere has either not visited or has chosen to ignore what they have experienced. Some will use this and extrapolate that its this 'culture' that drives its foreign policy in some greater picture view. Hitler banned guns in Germany as well and that didn't seem to make their foreign policy any better. Same with the Soviet Union. The argument for guns flies out the window with the Switzerland example. The argument has changed to a 'cultural' issue in America. If Americans were more like the Swiss it wouldn't be a problem I suppose. Some countries don't mind having less freedoms than we have here for their security. That's their business. I for one think that once you readily give up one freedom, the others are easier to take away. The same people that want to ban guns in America have a problem with the Patriot Act violating their other civil liberties. It may be a 'can't have your cake and eat it too' proposition with guns as well. The guy was determined to kill many people. Guns was one way. Tim McVeigh didn't have a gun and killed way more people in Oklahoma. Guns are banned in the UK but a determined terrorist found other means to kill many people. A japanese cult did by releasing serin (I think, can't recall) into their subway system. Determined people will always find a way, gun or no gun. The NRA are so staunchly pro gun that they won't even concede what most Americans deem logical controls on certain types of weapons, registration and conrols to ensure that folks who shouldn't have it, get it and the virulently anti gun crowd have no real solution to guarantee that banning guns won't have the same effect that banning alcohol did in the 1920s.
  13. ...again, how do you sucessfully get rid of guns in America and stop guns from coming in the country if you banned the manufacture of them? I haven't heard a plausible solution to this.
  14. lol...all our freedoms have some restrictions. 'Yelling fire in a crowded theatre' for free speech. Libelous stuff for freedom of the press, etc.
  15. I'm all for restrictions on AK47s, I think that the pro gun people are a little too militant about not banning any kind of guns. There has to be a middle ground. The gun lobby is strong and they are at fault for the lacks background checks. I think there are other areas that has to be addressed for instance, due to doctor/client privelege a psychologist can not have a patient put on the banned list like criminals are. If you're deemed mentally unstable you should be restricted from gun ownership. Reconfigured guns to make them more powerful is also a no no in my book.
  16. The comparison with Switzerland is relevant. Also, Tim McVeigh killed far more people with out guns. The guy was determined. If he didn't have a gun he'd have found other means. Its unfair to label all of America the wild west. There are numerous parts of America that have little or no crime rate, and probably have rates of crime comparable to areas of countries like England that has no guns.
  17. Not that it matters what race he was, but just that I heard it on the news, amongst other things, its understood he was Asian-American and killed his girlfriend or ex gf or whatever and then went out on a killing spree after that.
  18. Most Swiss are armed or its at least mandated I believe by the government since they have a citizen army. So, I'm assuming they have a high gun per capita rate. What is the crime rate in Switzerland anyhow? NYC and DC have strict gun laws but high crime rates. There are counties in Texas with concealed weapon laws and from what I understand (I'm assuming) have low gun crime rates. There are counties where I Alabama where I went to school where just about every house has a gun and I've seen more than my share of shot gun racks in the back of trucks (with the requisite confederate flag..lol) as well but low crime in that area. I know of a few english folks who talk about the rising crime rates in parts of london and other locales but there is ban on guns. Banning guns won't make you safe. Also, in the U.S. banning guns is akin to banning alcohol. It simply won't work. Culturally its part of us, all you'll do is give organized crime a new revenue stream. Lets say we ban guns, how do you stop them from coming in the country?
  19. This will seem callous but its part of the risk of a free society. You have free speech and some it will say hateful speech. You give freedom of the press and you'll have Fox News, you give freedom or religion and you'll have scientologists. Its a tragedy. The guy could have bought a ton of fertilizer and set off a bomb just as easily and killed more people. People like that are determined to kill many people and no amount of gun control would have stopped him.
  20. Why does it have to be a referundum on gun control? Also, what about the constitution? Its a tragic event. This gun control topic has been on this site before. Usually those from countries that have always banned guns (most everyone on here) are for gun control and some Americans (and a few others) against. I'll go on record that I am against a ban on all guns but want the present laws enforced. Until 2/3 of Congress, the president and 3/4 of all the governors sign off it as stated by the constitution, then its legal. In some areas of Texas there are concealed weapon laws that work well. I went to school in the deep south where 16 year olds routinely got a .22 rifle as a rite of passage in small towns. NYC and DC have strong gun laws but are still violent. Banning guns will make it like alcohol in the 1920s, you'll create a black market. We can't stop people and drugs from coming accross the borders, we'll just be adding one more thing. At least having it legal gives us some way of tracking people and guns and bullets. There are at least a few hundred million guns in circulation right now. Its too late to ban it completely anyway. Lets see this for what it is, a tragic event. Had he ran a car into a crowd and killed 22 people, we wouldn't be on here talkign about banning cars.
  21. Fair enough BB, at least this Antwerp girl won the 'battle of the bulge', unlike her American counterparts. ::
  22. BB, on a trip to England in April I actually met a Belgian girl, from Antwerp, on a train I took to Cambridge. She was very personable, not a beauty but cute enough for a one off. We talked the whole way from London to Cambridge and she gave me her card and said call her when I got back to London. An American woman wouldn't do that. I've been to Europe before and found the women there better than American women. But maybe its a grass is greener thing for me and if I had to live in Belgium or one of the other European countries I'd change my mind. As for the 2nd item. That was not my view but the view of the American women I've met. I agree with you. I've met some very stubborn TGs. Who are their own person. Generally though American women would take offense to the 'up to you' response that the TGs would give. They see that kind of politeness as a submissive gesture. I've told American women repeatedly that what they better fear is the word getting out to American men about Asia and South America. The vast majority of men here put up with a lot of the crap because they feel they have no other option. In regards to the original thread, I will again say that the greatest power is being able to say no to the golden one when its used as a power move. As I said before and what I've told certain women here. "..I need p***y, I just don't need your p****y..." In the scene the BGs realise that. They know you can simply take your baht elsewhere. What they strive to do is get to you emotionally so you don't want any other. Which is what all women try to do no matter where you live.
  23. "..the fault lies in ourselves..." I don't blame women for treating it as such because we're the ones that let them. Like others, I thought I had to because they were the only option. However, I now know that there are far better options in Brazil, Thailand, even europe (even though our european counterparts on here would probably disagree). Having traveled abroad and being treated a lot better than women in my own country, it has made it easier to date in the states. I can take it or leave it. The biggest advantage you have is the power to say no. I recall a woman I was dating who was acting up and I decided not see her anymore. She said 'don't act like you don't want any pussy' and I told her 'I need pussy. I just don't need your pussy right now'. The biggest threat to falang women is if word gets out there are millions of women outside their borders that will cater to men much better than they can or will. Many female friends have tried (unsuccessfully) to talk me out of considering marriage to a Thai, Brazilian or 'foreign' woman. I say, why should I stay and suffer like the rest of the men here? 'Oh Steve, you won't be happy' 'You'll have nothing in common' 'You don't want someone who will just be submissive to you, do you?', 'She'll just use you for citizenship and a visa'. I have heard it all.
  24. You're assuming I was aware of this before I posted right? Also, not to belittle any human suffering, each person has to make a judgment for themselves. Thousands still visit mainland China despite proof of prisoner slave labor. Some may even say why visit the U.S. for certain things domestically as well as internationally. Each person has to make their own judgment. Using your implied criteria, most of us would probably have to limit our holidays to Sweden....and I bet someone could come up with a good reason not to go there as well.
×
×
  • Create New...