Shootermick wrote:Regardless of the ABC beat up on the headline. An ice addict who gets his hands on a gun, any gun, is nothing but bad news. It doesn’t at all help the rest of us, and it’s not the sort of publicity responsible owners want or need, but it’s unfortunately happening.
Shootermick wrote:Regardless of the ABC beat up on the headline. An ice addict who gets his hands on a gun, any gun, is nothing but bad news. It doesn’t at all help the rest of us, and it’s not the sort of publicity responsible owners want or need, but it’s unfortunately happening.
on_one_wheel wrote: Laws only affect the law abiding.
Fionn wrote:on_one_wheel wrote: Laws only affect the law abiding.
While I often over estimate peopled abilities, are you truly this ignorant? I think a lot of criminals in gaol will disagree with you.
on_one_wheel wrote:Thanks for your antagonistic reply Fionn ...how's the butt hurt going ? Still a bit sore I see.
Perhaps not my best choice of words but I'm pretty sure you’re smart enough to read between the lines.
Just in case your not, I'll spell it out for a tone-deaf person such as yourself.
Laws do not prevent people bad from doing whatever they want.
Fionn wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:Thanks for your antagonistic reply Fionn ...how's the butt hurt going ? Still a bit sore I see.
Perhaps not my best choice of words but I'm pretty sure you’re smart enough to read between the lines.
Just in case your not, I'll spell it out for a tone-deaf person such as yourself.
Laws do not prevent people bad from doing whatever they want.
That's OK, someone has to call out the ignorant comments, or as you said not the best choice of words, too bad you clarified the ignorant comment with another one.
Keep digging that hole.
on_one_wheel wrote:I'm not the one digging himself a great big f***ing hole... that's actually you.
I don't come here deliberately antagonising and blatantly name calling other forum members like some sort of f***ing looser with a bone to pick.
It's you who starts this crap every time.
Fionn wrote:That's OK, someone has to call out the ignorant comments, or as you said not the best choice of words, too bad you clarified the ignorant comment with another one.
Keep digging that hole.
bladeracer wrote:Fionn wrote:That's OK, someone has to call out the ignorant comments, or as you said not the best choice of words, too bad you clarified the ignorant comment with another one.
Keep digging that hole.
Are you still pushing your misguided belief that laws prevent people that don't obey them from doing what the law says they shouldn't?
Laws do not prevent crimes, never have, never will. They are words written on paper. Even if you educate the criminal that such a law exists it is still irrelevant to him. Criminals don't care what you say they shouldn't do, if they want to do something they just do it.
on_one_wheel wrote:Laws only affect the law abiding.
Fionn wrote:First of, stop using a Red Herring fallacy to redirect the discussion.
On_One_wheel said and I quoteon_one_wheel wrote:Laws only affect the law abiding.
This is clearly an ignorant thing to state and as I said there are many in gaol who would disagree.
On to your usage of "prevent", as we have already covered in other posts your usage of the term "prevent" is narrow and ignorant.
You seem to wrongly believe that "prevent" only means to physically stop something and you clearly don't seem to know it can be used as an intransitive verb.
Hoped you have learnt something and glad I could be of assistance.
bladeracer wrote:I'm not trying to redirect any discussion.
on_one-wheel's statement is correct, laws have little useful effect on those of us that obey them. They may occasionally cause some nuisance value, like not being able to own semi-auto rifles anymore, but the law only affects us if we decide to ignore it and become criminals.
bladeracer wrote:
People in gaol clearly ignored the law thus the law did not prevent them doing criminal acts, if it had they wouldn't be in gaol would they...
bladeracer wrote:I use the word prevent the same way the vast majority of the population use it. You prevent something by stopping it from happening, laws prevent nothing.
rc42 wrote:Fionn - If I've made any grammatical errors or used words contrary to their Oxford English Dictionary definitions please jump in and let me know.
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:I'm not trying to redirect any discussion.
on_one-wheel's statement is correct, laws have little useful effect on those of us that obey them. They may occasionally cause some nuisance value, like not being able to own semi-auto rifles anymore, but the law only affects us if we decide to ignore it and become criminals.
Yes you are trying to redirect!.
on_one-wheel's statement is not correct, for clarity here it is again "Laws only affect the law abiding."
Given that people are incarcerated because they have been found guilty of breaking the law, so therefore aren't law abiding, its clearly having an affect on them at some level.
So to clarify your argument again, are you claiming it doesn't have an affect on them, even though they have been incarcerated for not following them.
Can you see the problem here? or am I expecting to much from you?bladeracer wrote:
People in gaol clearly ignored the law thus the law did not prevent them doing criminal acts, if it had they wouldn't be in gaol would they...
I have already covered the usage of "prevent" .
If you want the statement to make logical sense, you would be better off saying "laws don't prevent all crimes" falling to quantify the statement makes it a flawed by specious reasoning. Which I have already pointed out.bladeracer wrote:I use the word prevent the same way the vast majority of the population use it. You prevent something by stopping it from happening, laws prevent nothing.
They say, ignorance is bliss, which I guess is true, as you don't seem to take it well when someone shatters that bliss.
Bugman wrote:Shame. This original post was quite interesting. But it is being slowly hijacked and becoming very boring.
bladeracer wrote:Bugman wrote:Shame. This original post was quite interesting. But it is being slowly hijacked and becoming very boring.
Was it though?
The first few posts are just joking responses, not discussion. The original post was merely an observation of poor journalism. Then a genuine post was made about how the situation occurred, and a response mentioned that the law sucks. As soon as the law was questioned our resident legal expert jumped into the conversation, as usual by calling somebody ignorant, and tried to convince us that there's nothing wrong with laws and that we really need a lot more of them. If any redirection of the topic occurred it was due to his intolerance of anybody having a go at our legal system.
If you skip over his pedantry you will see a discussion about how the law helps none of us, which I find more interesting than discussing journalism
Larry wrote:FFS back to the original topic. This forum every topic just wanders off into a complete wank fest