You all have it wrong. That was Hitler, who came into the future in a time machine. The police, having been alerted by agents of the Illuminati that Hitler was about to go back to 1943 with blue prints to a super secret ray gun, were put on the case.

Yes, I get all that and agree with some of the points you have made. I didn't explain myself fully before.

My point was more about logical consistency: If he got his time machine, went back and did all of those things that he has outlined and then returned to present day to make jokes about white people, that would be plain and simple racism in that fictional environment. "Reverse racism" in that fictional world would be black and brown people complaining about white racists.

Wow! You knew about high speed fiber optic trading in the 70's? Can I borrow your time machine?

My point is the situation exists and we do not have time machines. You posit drones are the wrong answer. I am simply asking you provide a better one then. The simplest alternative would presumably be doing absolutely nothing. Doing nothing as Pakistan heads towards either becoming a failed state or one run by Islamic jihadists doesn't seem a 'good' alternative.

I need a time machine toaster for the Alpine Slide.

No stop lights.

I want a time machine.

If I had a time machine I'd go back and show turing a collection of 'it gets better' videos.

Fuck what a shame.

>> ^L0cky:
I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).
It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.
I took a look at the pdf, and while the charts are nice, they cover various date ranges and present their results in different formats, and I think you're misinterpreting them. What I did was use the search feature and look at the raw data. You can also search for non death injuries, but gun related non deadly injuries, accidental or intentional, doesn't even make the top 20, and it doesn't show anything below that.

>> ^L0cky:
In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.
You just said that your source doesn't show non death injuries, yet now you're claiming 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year. You claim to be getting your sources from the same place, but the data from the CDC shows that between 1999 and 2010 the average homicide by firearm is 12,807 deaths per year. If you add accidental deaths involving firearms the total comes to 21,146 which accounts for 9.6% of all accidental and intentional deaths (this does not include suicide, illness and disease related deaths).

>> ^L0cky:
Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.
We already have plenty of gun control laws. More laws are not going to stop someone that has no intention of obeying them. You obviously did not read the whole article I linked to as it points out that "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation.

>> ^L0cky:
I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.
No one said that you need to teach children to use guns to justify their existence. You were a kid once (or still are), and at a certain age didn't you do the opposite of everything your parents said? If there is going to be a gun in a house, even if they are told it's dangerous and not to be played with and you do your best to lock it up and keep it away from them, if they do get their hands on it wouldn't it be better that they knew how to properly handle it so they don't end up adding to the accidental death by firearm statistic? Cars are dangerous too, but we teach our kids how to be safe in and around cars (wear your seat belt, look both ways before crossing street, etc.), why are you so freaked out about teaching a kid gun safety?

Your philosophy that kids shouldn't be taught how to use guns because guns are bad is basically the same as abstinence only sex education, AKA teaching ignorance.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.
I said I own guns for many reasons, self defense being one of them. You still seem to be confused about why someone chooses to carry a gun for self defense. It looks to me based on what you've written is that you assume someone carries a gun only to protect themselves from other gun owners. As I already pointed out, only 10% of violent crimes involve the use of a gun. I carry to protect myself from 100% of crimes.

>> ^L0cky:
That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.
You can't pick out a small portion of a larger statistic to base your argument on, you need to take into account the whole picture. That's like saying 2001 was a slow year for terrorism, if you don't count the World Trade Center attacks.

>> ^L0cky:
This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns.
I don't know what more you expect, a crime was in progress, a lawfully armed citizen stopped it and it was reported to the police. What your asking isn't possible as the only way to know what would have happened in the other situations is to invent a time machine.

>> ^L0cky:
I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.
What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.
If guns don't reduce crime, then why do we give them to the police? Once more back to that article you didn't read:

"In 13 states citizens who wish to carry arms may do so, having met certain requirements. Consider Florida, which in 1987 enacted a concealed-carry law guaranteeing a gun permit to any resident who is at least 21, has no record of crime, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, and who has completed a firearms safety course. Florida's homicide rate fell following the enactment of this law, as did the rate in Oregon after the enactment of a similar law. Through June 1993, there had been 160,823 permits issued in Florida. Only 530, or 0.33 percent, of the applicants have been denied permits. This indicates that the law is serving the law abiding. Only l6 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been rescinded because of the commission, after issuance, of a crime involving a firearm."

>> ^L0cky:
You're right, if guns suddenly vanished tomorrow there would still be crime and violence. However, it would be crime and violence without guns; and I think, that (of itself) is preferable. How could it not be?
Are you fucking serous? Why is a murder with a gun any worse than a knife, baseball bat or even bare hands? A murder is a murder no matter what tool is used to commit it. Other crimes besides murder would be better off without guns, but what part of 90% of violent crimes do not involve the use of a gun did you not understand? If you take away guns from everyone, you're only removing 10% of the tools used by violent criminals, and that doesn't guarantee that violent crime will drop by 10%? In reality you wouldn't be removing anything from criminals because "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation. So you essentially want to take away every law abiding citizen's right to defend themselves with a gun without doing anything to stop criminals from committing crimes with guns.

>> ^L0cky:
Crime in the UK has reduced dramatically according to The Office for National Statistics between before then (1999/2001) and now, including firearm offences. In Australia assault is up, robbery is down and sexual assault is about the same according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Homicides involving firearms have continued to decline to their lowest on record.
From your source: "Provisional figures for the year ending June 2012 show that 5,507 firearm offences were recorded in England and Wales, an 18 per cent decrease on the previous year (6,694)." In 1997 when the ban was enacted only 2,648 crimes were reported involving guns. It looks like that ban has worked well.


>> ^L0cky:
I pulled it from the same source you are correcting me with
The CDC - Injury in the United States: 2007 Chart Book, page 24.
Statisticslol
This is where you have misinterpreted the graphs. The vertical portion of that graph is in deaths per 100,000 population. If you dig up the raw numbers from the search engine this is what you'll find:

Motor Vehicle Accident = 22%
Homicide by Firearm = 13%
Accident by Firearm = 0.5%

>> ^Mauru:

[...was ranty post...]
Instead I am just going to state that I would very much like to put you into a time-machine, send you 4.5 years back and make you remember what the constant urge to face-palm feels like.
I can assure you that the rest of the world is currently decisively less likely in wanting to build a giant wall around your country than directly after Bush.
>> ^Yogi:

So where are you from just wondering? I just can't let this pass. Obama is worse than Bush. I'll say it again...OBAMA IS WORSE THAN BUSH. The only reason why the World...and that is intellectuals and leaders not the population but the only reason why they like Obama better than Bush is because Obama is NICER about being a fucking evil bastard. Bush just said straight up, we don't care what you think. Obama says with a smile that it doesn't matter what you think.
Obama is continuing and expanding the murderous policies from under Bush he's just being nicer about it.



You're just wrong. Bush is a bastard absolutely, but Obama is worse. He's just nicer about it.

bumda da da da da
I'm Doctor Who, I've got incredible wit.
With way more time travel experience, I'd pop you like a zit.

Well I built a Time machine out of a Delorian Kit
and when this baby hits 88 ! you gona see some Serious SHIT!

Ohhhhhhhhhhh

[...was ranty post...]
Instead I am just going to state that I would very much like to put you into a time-machine, send you 4.5 years back and make you remember what the constant urge to face-palm feels like.

I can assure you that the rest of the world is currently decisively less likely in wanting to build a giant wall around your country than directly after Bush.

>> ^Yogi:


So where are you from just wondering? I just can't let this pass. Obama is worse than Bush. I'll say it again...OBAMA IS WORSE THAN BUSH. The only reason why the World...and that is intellectuals and leaders not the population but the only reason why they like Obama better than Bush is because Obama is NICER about being a fucking evil bastard. Bush just said straight up, we don't care what you think. Obama says with a smile that it doesn't matter what you think.
Obama is continuing and expanding the murderous policies from under Bush he's just being nicer about it.

Anybody that says they've built a perpetual motion machine should be viewed with the same skepticism as somebody who claims they've built a time machine.

Saying that, Calvin (and Hobbes) built some very interesting machines out of cardboard ;3

It's like Hot Tub Time Machine, where they're cheering just as the bellhop might've lost his arm.