Everyone knows what a high-tech top-notch country Holland is.
That's why you have to use an internet-site if we want to sign up for an university since about 5 years. Well, not that bad, easy-to-use and it makes life a lot easier for everyone, well....., at least in theory.

The first two years, everyone needed to do a paper sign up just to be sure. And from what I've hear universities were quite glad they had them.
In example, if your birth date and last name were the same as someone else's in the country you had big problems.
Also, it seems like no-one ever expects that a few 17-18 year olds might sign up on the last moment that it's possible. That means the site is "less available" the week before and unavailable the last two days.
I might want to add that apparently F5'ing or pressing back makes you need to start all over again (+- 15 pages at the end). That means you need to start over if you get a timeout. And that happens a lot... (see above).

Granted, it doesn't give a lot of problems nowadays anymore (if you sign up on time). The universities know its quirks by know.

But well, I just signed up for Computer Science (Informatica for the interested) I encountered this little pearl:

O btw, this page is about paying college money. "Entrance money" to the university (every year), it probably has a decent English word.
Guess I'll never be sorry for my student loans.......

dtech:

Everyone knows what a high-tech top-notch country Holland is.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

 

What, did you upgrade your wooden shoes to bronze ones?  Oh God, you're killing me here!!!!

dtech:

Everyone knows what a high-tech top-notch country Holland is.
*snip all of Holland's technical flaws*

I hope you intended to disprove your own thesis.

Sign me up, the uni can take the fee from my pension when i'm older. One dollar each week.

dtech:

"Entrance money" to the university (every year), it probably has a decent English word.

 

Tuition? Admission fees?

Nice to see that you've got ~200 years to get everything completed. The university here in town limits you to 8 years before your earlier credits start expiring. 

morbiuswilters:

dtech:

Everyone knows what a high-tech top-notch country Holland is.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! 

What, did you upgrade your wooden shoes to bronze ones?  Oh God, you're killing me here!!!!

 

bstorer:

dtech:

Everyone knows what a high-tech top-notch country Holland is.
*snip all of Holland's technical flaws*

I hope you intended to disprove your own thesis.

Holland... five years behind the United States in understanding internet, but hundreds of years ahead of the United States in understanding irony.

Paddles:

Holland... five years behind the United States in understanding internet, but hundreds of years ahead of the United States in understanding irony.

Wherever the fuck Paddles is from... a hundred years behind the United States in understanding jokes, but hundreds of years ahead of the United States in FAIL.

The English word you were looking for for "entrance money"  is "tuition," by the way.

Veinor:

The US metonym you were looking for for "entrance money"  is "tuition," by the way.

 

 

 

bstorer:

Paddles:

Holland... five years behind the United States in understanding internet, but hundreds of years ahead of the United States in understanding irony.

Wherever the fuck Paddles is from... a hundred years behind the United States in understanding jokes, but hundreds of years ahead of the United States in FAIL.

US: any nutjob can own a gun. Smoking pot lands you in jail.

Holland: tighter gun laws. Smoke all you want.

Sounds like they're ahead to me. 

morbiuswilters:

dtech:

Everyone knows what a high-tech top-notch country Holland is.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

 

What, did you upgrade your wooden shoes to bronze ones?  Oh God, you're killing me here!!!!

bstorer:

dtech:

Everyone knows what a high-tech top-notch country Holland is.
*snip all of Holland's technical flaws*

I hope you intended to disprove your own thesis.

Obviously it is really necessary to use </irony> of </sarcasm> here. Or I must add them to your post...

DOA:

US: any nutjob can own a gun. Smoking pot lands you in jail.

Holland: tighter gun laws. Smoke all you want.

Sounds like they're ahead to me. 

It's actually not possible to own a hand-gun if you're not police or security (and you need to take several exams). Easiest way to get something that can shoot is to get a hunting rifle.
The smoking pot thing might change actually. More and more coffee-shops are closed (they are "not allowed" to buy weed, only to sell it, and they are only allowed to have 5 kg at stock).
Police is also rounding up "plantations" by the dozen.
Paddo's (hallucinating toadstools) are going to be illegal in 2009 or 2010.

Damn, animal porn/sex will also be illegal next year..., there go all of the benefits.

morbiuswilters:

dtech:

Everyone knows what a high-tech top-notch country Holland is.

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

 

What, did you upgrade your wooden shoes to bronze ones?  Oh God, you're killing me here!!!!

It took some research, but aluminum with a plastic coating was the best option we could find.
And I think we have the most Internet connections per square meter here. Not to forget we are the only country that makes land (the dubai islands are being build by dutch contractors) our power network is one of the most advanced in the world (breakdowns as seen in the US a few years back are impossible)

Ofcourse we still all walk on wooden shoes and live in windmills.

(And I think you can own a gun with the right license)

 If I live in Holland I'd soon find myself wishing for a bit of topography. Flat is convenient but gets boring after a while.

m0ffx:

 If I live in Holland I'd soon find myself wishing for a bit of topography. Flat is convenient but gets boring after a while.

Don't mock that! We have height differences! We range from -25 meters below sea level up to 300 meter above!

m0ffx:

If I live in Holland I'd soon find myself wishing for a bit of topography. Flat is convenient but gets boring after a while.

 

Hey, we do have a mountain. A staggering 322 metres (1000 feet?). 

dtech:

Don't mock that! We have height differences! We range from -25 meters below sea level up to 300 meter above!

-25 meters? That's a little bit overdreven.

 

 

m0ffx:

 If I live in Holland I'd soon find myself wishing for a bit of topography. Flat is convenient but gets boring after a while.

Woo, I could use some flatness. Here we  live on the side of hills and moutains. The greek islands you hear so much about are basically mountain tops poking out of the sea. And let me tell you, when summer comes and it gets to about 35-40C, walking uphill gets REALLY old REALLY fast.

ArieLex:

m0ffx:

If I live in Holland I'd soon find myself wishing for a bit of topography. Flat is convenient but gets boring after a while.

 

Hey, we do have a mountain. A staggering 322 metres (1000 feet?). 

dtech:

Don't mock that! We have height differences! We range from -25 meters below sea level up to 300 meter above!

-25 meters? That's a little bit overdreven.

 

Ok, ok. -15 meters (50 feet)

DOA:

US: any nutjob responsible citizen with no history of criminal activity can own a gun.

FTFY.

 

DOA:

Smoking pot lands you in jail.

I'm not going to argue that this isn't stupid, but it's also reversing.  Most places just confiscate small amounts of pot and fine you now.

 

morbiuswilters:

DOA:

US: any nutjob responsible citizen (or nutjob) with no history of criminal activity can own a gun.

FTFY.

FTFY

m0ffx:

 If I live in Holland I'd soon find myself wishing for a bit of topography.

 

I like how you emphasised that point by using typography.  Funny!

m0ffx:

Flat is convenient

Well, if you call "flooding every time there's a slightly-above-average high tide " convenient, yes, I suppose so.  And you might want to buy some 'land' in East Anglia, while you're at it...

morbiuswilters:

DOA:

US: any nutjob responsible citizen with no history of criminal activity can own a gun.

FTFY.

Fix'd.

You are in luck most visitors here don't know about the facination for a certain color in the Netherlands .. 

Random832:

morbiuswilters:

DOA:

US: any nutjob responsible citizen with no history of criminal activity can own a gun.

FTFY.

Fix'd.

Ha ha ha, you really are just plain retarded, aren't you?  Let me guess: you live in some wussy, backwater European country that would probably be a dictatorship today if not for the US, right?  I bet you spend a lot of time furiously writing letters to the editor, scolding smokers for buying cigarettes and generally making everyone around you wish for your death. 

morbiuswilters:

Ha ha ha, you really are just plain retarded, aren't you?  Let me guess: you live in some wussy, backwater European country that would probably be a dictatorship today if not for the US, right?  I bet you spend a lot of time furiously writing letters to the editor, scolding smokers for buying cigarettes and generally making everyone around you wish for your death. 

 

Nah, he's GMT-5 which is Eastern Time, which is USA and... Canada.

DrJokepu:

Nah, he's GMT-5 which is Eastern Time, which is USA and... Canada.

...and Cuba.

DOA:

US: any nutjob can own a gun. Smoking pot lands you in jail.

 

I am going to have to assume you are referring to LEGALLY owning a gun.

Please provide your statistics on how many people who are killed each year by the LICENSED owner of a handgun, and how many people are killed by any of the number of ways to die from smoking pot.

 

(For reference: Yes, DUI while stoned counts. Yes it happens, despite many claims. Also how many of the people who smoked pot died of lung cancer which you cannot prove wasn't caused by the pot)

Also, take the statistics from people who's lives were SAVED by legal owners of guns and subtract that. Then go and look at how many lives were cost because ignorant people who are anti-gun wouldn't allow QUALIFIED, RESPONSIBLE, and LAW ABIDING people to carry their LEGAL handguns in colleges, schools, and government buildings.

Criminals will always get guns or weapons. It happens in every country. Don't embarass yourself by trying to argue gun laws will stop this.

Go ahead, do that math. It won't come out in your favor like you think it will.

I definitely am against the pot laws in the US, but I believe you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

MasterPlanSoftware:

...but I believe you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

If he was, JimBastard would be there to catch it before the nugz were wasted. 

morbiuswilters:

MasterPlanSoftware:

...but I believe you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

If he was, JimBastard would be there to catch it before the nugz were wasted. 

 

Sounds about right to me.

MasterPlanSoftware:

DOA:

US: any nutjob can own a gun. Smoking pot lands you in jail.

 

I am going to have to assume you are referring to LEGALLY owning a gun.

Please provide your statistics on how many people who are killed each year by the LICENSED owner of a handgun

If weaponry is legal to a very high degree it's very hard for police to restrict it. In example: citizens without criminal record can buy apples. It makes it much easier for others to get apples (becauses stores are allowed to have apples, you can't arrest someone because he owns/sold/has an apple. Importing is allowed and no-one will notice a few missing in a crate of 1000 etc....). If in contradiction apples are only legal to very people you can arrest anyone for owning/holding/having an apple, apple import is only allowed by one organisation which is under tight survailance of the governement.

MasterPlanSoftware:

 

1 , and how many people are killed by any of the number of ways to die from smoking pot. (For reference: Yes, DUI while stoned counts. Yes it happens, despite many claims. 2 Also how many of the people who smoked pot died of lung cancer which you cannot prove wasn't caused by the pot)

3 Also, take the statistics from people who's lives were SAVED by legal owners of guns and subtract that. 4 Then go and look at how many lives were cost because ignorant people who are anti-gun wouldn't allow QUALIFIED, RESPONSIBLE, and LAW ABIDING people to carry their LEGAL handguns in colleges, schools, and government buildings.

5 Criminals will always get guns or weapons. It happens in every country. Don't embarass yourself by trying to argue gun laws will stop this.

6 Go ahead, do that math. It won't come out in your favor like you think it will.

I definitely am against the pot laws in the US, but I believe you are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

1. Can't say for the US, but here in Holland I've never heard of someone who directly got killed thanks to weed. And believe me, there are people here who would blow such an incident up. The most recent one (+- a year ago) was a man who slaughtered his dog hannibal-lecter-style in the back of his van after smoking to much pot.
   I do know that the number of people killed by people under the influence of weed is greatly outnumbered by the people that die because of DUI with alcohol or, for that matter, speeding in occupied areas
2. O, so now the obligation to proof is reversed to the "defendant" side? Oke, here I go.
   You smoke at most 5 grams of shag with a joint. Thats where you could get the lung-cancer from. The most extreme example I know smoked about 13 joints a week (1 during weekdays, 8 during weekends). That's 65 grams of shag a week, slightly more than one pack. That's about the same lethal as 2 packs of cigarettes a week. Obviously you know no-one who smokes that in a week so obviously weed is more serious than for example smoking
4. You got me on that one. Lets see, you have that one prevented gas station robbery... Ok, I got 3 in a year, I'll substract them for you. Seriously, how can a gun save someone that couldn't be saved with i.e. a baseball bat or a metal pipe? If you mean it can prevent bank or gas-station robberies I've got some news: they almost never happen in (western) countries with more strict weapon countries because the doucebags who usually do that can't easily get a gun...
5. Ok, you gave to explain that to me. How can that cost lives? Next thing you're telling me is that WiFi in public building costs lives because all the poor people with EHS die.
6. True, but it's a lot harder for them and they get less in countries where you don't get a gun with it if you buy 3 packs of milk at the local supermarket. Also, students and schoolboys won't get them to kill half their university or school...
   (it has happened exactly once in the past ten years in the Netherlands. A half-retard thinks his teacher hates him and wants a higher mark so he'll pass (he has "violated the family honor" and that sort of blablabla), and wants to threaten him with a gun. Thing is, when he walked in the school cantine he panics and actually shoots the guy in front of half the school.

Yes, such incidents happen, but a lot less frequent if gun laws are strict.

 overdreven = exaggerated of zo iets.

MasterPlanSoftware:

DOA:

US: any nutjob can own a gun. Smoking pot lands you in jail.

 

I am going to have to assume you are referring to LEGALLY owning a gun.

Please provide your statistics on how many people who are killed each year by the LICENSED owner of a handgun, and how many people are killed by any of the number of ways to die from smoking pot. 

(For reference: Yes, DUI while stoned counts. Yes it happens, despite many claims. Also how many of the people who smoked pot died of lung cancer which you cannot prove wasn't caused by the pot)

Also, take the statistics from people who's lives were SAVED by legal owners of guns and subtract that. Then go and look at how many lives were cost because ignorant people who are anti-gun wouldn't allow QUALIFIED, RESPONSIBLE, and LAW ABIDING people to carry their LEGAL handguns in colleges, schools, and government buildings.

Criminals will always get guns or weapons. It happens in every country. Don't embarass yourself by trying to argue gun laws will stop this.

Go ahead, do that math. It won't come out in your favor like you think it will.

 

If you're arguing that lax gun laws are better, it might be because you live in exactly that type of culture. Here, gun laws are strict. It means that you wont have a way to defend yourself if someone with a gun breaks into your house. However it also means that you wont get shot in a road rage incident. People don't get shot when someone snaps. They don't get shot by muggers. They don't get shot by disgruntled spouses. They don't even get shot by accident. And no matter what the system tells you, there's no way to know for sure who's responsible enough to be trusted with a firearm. I know this because there is a small part of the country, usually backwards isolated villages and the like, where having a hunting rifle is the norm and they keep ending up in the news. It's always some pointless vendetta, some retard killing someone because he was stealing his fruit or some 15 yr old blowing his brains out because dad didn't hide the gun-cabinet key well enough.

I'm sorry but I just don't trust JohnQPublic to carry a weapon. And I sure as hell don't trust some beaurocrat to decide who's responsible and who's not.

Changing gun laws in the US might not make a difference there, probably because they've had a gun-totting culture since the first settlers. Strict laws do work in other places though.

As for pot, it's illegal here too. I don't have some special affinity for it, it's just that I like seeing one country not be hypocritical enough to allow tobacco and alcohol but not marijuana.

DOA:

If you're arguing that lax gun laws are better, it might be because you live in exactly that type of culture.

 

Our gun laws here are by no means 'lax'. You should do some research prior to making these statements.

DOA:

However it also means that you wont get shot in a road rage incident.

Unless that person illegally has a gun. Also, defense against an armed person isnt limited to him having a gun. What if he has a baseball bat? Will you stand there and be beaten to death?A normal person does not stand much of a chance against a raging lunatic with a baseball bat. I, for one, prefer to know that if such an individual is threatening my life (newsflash: you can kill someone very easily with your HANDS, let alone a blunt object) I have a way to defend myself. Perhaps your strict laws and lack of freedom have made it such that you are unconcerned about losing your life in your everyday commute, but I have a little more hope left I guess.

 

DOA:

And no matter what the system tells you, there's no way to know for sure who's responsible enough to be trusted with a firearm.

Sure there is. CCW statistics are a matter of public record. You can look up how many people are CCW permit holders that commit a gun crime each year. Go ahead. Then you won't make statements like this. I have never seen a single incident of a CCW permit holder going on a rampage or hurting anyone where they couldn't make a decent argument of their justification. Sure, sometimes the law is not on their side after defending themselves, but they are still alive, and that was their intention. The statistics will speak for themselves. You brought the rhetoric, now spend the time to prove it.

DOA:

or some 15 yr old blowing his brains out because dad didn't hide the gun-cabinet key well enough.

That is ridiculous. It is against the law to keep a firearm outside of your control and not locked up. You may be talking about some remote place in your area, but here this is the law. Certainly it happens, but by the same token the 15 year old kid could just as easily steal his parent's car keys and hurt themselves or others. Will you next advocate banning all cars?

DOA:

I'm sorry but I just don't trust JohnQPublic to carry a weapon

 That man standing next to you might be all that keeps you from being shot down by thieves in the subway someday.

Really, get over you fear of guns. This sounds like a deep psychological wound in you. I cannot explain it any other way.

Why would you trust a police officer to carry a weapon any more or less than a CCW permit holder? Explain that one.

DOA:

And I sure as hell don't trust some beaurocrat to decide who's responsible and who's not.

What bureaucrat? The police here decide who gets to carry a gun, and it is their discretion AFTER the proper training and screening. Once again you are showing you have no concept of the very things you are arguing against.

I argue that Zepplins are evil and should be banned because I haven't a clue how they are made!

DOA:

Strict laws do work in other places though.

Sorry, here we prefer our freedom. 

There are a lot of reasons why America is passionate about firearms, but I have argued with a lot of people like you and it always comes down to: "I dont like them because I don't understand them and I fear them." I am not sure how you can overcome that, but I sincerely hope that someday you will be able to leave that draconian hell hole you must live in that forces strict laws down against it's people. America has begun to swing in that direction, hopefully in the next presidency we can start to reverse that bit.

Open your eyes and you mind, and don't be afraid of everything you have no clue about.

dtech:

...

 

You have done nothing but present more rhetoric here.

dtech:

Lets see, you have that one prevented gas station robbery... Ok, I got 3 in a year, I'll substract them for you.

Those sound like real statistics to me!

Pulling something out of your ass, and then handing it in as a statistic is just stupid and lazy. I see no reason to argue with you since you are obviously just trolling, and have no real clue of the argument.

dtech:

Seriously, how can a gun save someone that couldn't be saved with i.e. a baseball bat or a metal pipe?

If you are a lone clerk and 4 robbers break in armed with baseball bats acting violently and hitting you... do you think your own baseball bat is going to save you? Get real here, you obviously live life in some utopia the rest of us are not endowed with.

dtech:

they almost never happen in (western) countries with more strict weapon countries because the doucebags who usually do that can't easily get a gun...

Most bank robberies around here don't happen with a gun either... I have seen gas station robberies with bows and arrows, shovels, rakes, etc . Many times there are no weapons even used. Did you have a point here?

dtech:

Ok, you gave to explain that to me. How can that cost lives? Next thing you're telling me is that WiFi in public building costs lives because all the poor people with EHS die.

I cannot figure out how this is an argument to my point 5.

dtech:

don't get a gun with it if you buy 3 packs of milk at the local supermarket

Wow you got me there! Seriously, are you this stupid? Do you really believe it is easy to buy a gun here?

dtech:

Also, students and schoolboys won't get them to kill half their university or school...

If CCW was allowed on college campuses like everywhere else, do you think those cowards would have chosen a gun fight? Nope. They would have found someone who is an easier target to pick on. They were cowards, all of them.

dtech:

Yes, such incidents happen, but a lot less frequent if gun laws are strict.

You might be able to prove GUN crime would lessen (not disappear) but overall crime would not lessen. Sorry, but I have seen no statistics that prove what you are saying.

MasterPlanSoftware:

Sorry, here we prefer our freedom.

I could get into the whole sentence-by-sentence argument but you know what, if you want to be free by having every Tom, Dick and Harry carry lethal weapons around, that's just fine by me. It's not like I have to live there.

DOA:

I could get into the whole sentence-by-sentence argument but you know what, if you want to be free by having every Tom, Dick and Harry carry lethal weapons around, that's just fine by me. It's not like I have to live there.

It's not as bad as you're making it out to be. FYI: A lot of the times, police can't be trusted with guns, either. Get over it.

MasterPlanSoftware:

DOA:

If you're arguing that lax gun laws are better, it might be because you live in exactly that type of culture.

Our gun laws here are by no means 'lax'. You should do some research prior to making these statements.

http://media.www.nsucurrent.com/media/storage/paper779/news/2008/04/14/News/Nsu-Law.Student.Plans.LieIn.To.Protest.Lax.Gun.Laws.In.U.s-3320866.shtml

 

Cho was able to purchase the handguns used in these killings quite easily under Virginia law, despite his documented history of mental illness and the fact that he had been declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice in 2005 after stalking two female students on campus.

[...]

"In 35 states you can walk into a gun show where they have tons of tables set up to sell guns and some of these sellers will allow you to buy guns without doing a background check first. You can be a criminal, a terrorist or a dangerous person and you can walk out with an AK, an Uzi, or a high capacity ammunition magazine, which is essentially anything containing over ten bullets." Spangler said that while there are some vendors who do have to provide background checks at gun shows, there are several private sellers who are allowed to sell guns without conducting background checks first.

 

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070418.asp#1

Over undercover footage recorded by the New York City Police Department, Ross explained how it shows "it's possible to buy a handgun at a Virginia gun store with no waiting period and only what is called an instant background check." Though Ross aired a condemnatory soundbite from NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, he failed to note that Virginia has a lot fewer gun crimes per capita than does New York City.

 

http://www.vpc.org/press/0111jihad.htm

Muslim holy warriors should use lax firearms laws in the United States to get sniper and military assault rifle training according to a jihad training pamphlet posted on a web site that has been used by a most-wanted Al Qaeda fugitive.[...]"In some countries of the World, especially the USA, firearms training is available to the general public," and that "it is perfectly legal" to obtain weapons such as AK-47 assault rifles. It urges would-be warriors to take advantage of those lax laws and learn firearm fighting skills, especially sniping and assault rifle firing.[...]

[from the leaflet]

    * <Obtaining military style weapons. "[I]t is perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms" such as assault rifles. "[O]btain an assault rifle legally, preferably AK-47 or variations, learn how to use it properly," urges the paper.

    * Avoiding illegal trading in firearms. "Respect the laws of the country you are in and avoid dealing in illegal firearms," warns the document. "One can learn to operate many arms legally, so there is no need to spend years in prison for dealing in small, illegal firearms."

 

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_co.htm

What Are the Gun Laws in Colorado?

[...]
State Requirements
Rifles and Shotguns

    * Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
    * Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
    * Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
    * Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No

Handguns

    * Permit to purchase handgun? No
    * Registration of handguns? No
    * Licensing of owners of handguns? No
    * Permit to carry handguns? Yes (concealed)

 

And one of the more interesting ones - you don't even need to be able to see to legally own a gun...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10296505/

Blind marksman upset with N.D.'s lax gun laws

So, no - not lax at all.

PJH:

So, no - not lax at all.

Protip: The US media loves hype. All of them are one step away from being full-on tabloids. Don't believe everything you read.

AbbydonKrafts:

Don't believe everything you read.

So out of the ones I did find, which are not to be trusted? Which are bending the truth/spinning?

Seung-Hui Cho:

• Wasn't in fact mentally ill?
• Did in fact obtain firearms with more than an 'instant background check'?

'Muslim holy warriors':

• It isn't in fact possible for any member of the public (subject to previously mentioned exclusions elsethread) to legitimately purchase an AK47?

I'll pass on the more sensible training aspect of that one, since it is, erm, sensible. I'd rather someone holding a firearm had been trained than not.

Colorado:

• Purchase and Carrying permits are in fact required for shotguns?
• Purchase permits are in fact required for handguns? 

Blind marksman:

• Once you are legally blind you are in fact no longer permitted to carry/use firearms?

 Have all 4 articles got it that wrong? (Though given your 'tabloid' comment, if I'd seen any of those 4 stories in The Sun or the Daily Mail, I'd treat them with a great deal of contempt. This presupposes I'd be reading them in the first place....)

morbiuswilters:

Random832:

morbiuswilters:

DOA:

US: any nutjob responsible citizen with no history of criminal activity can own a gun.

FTFY.

Fix'd.

Ha ha ha, you really are just plain retarded, aren't you?  Let me guess: you live in some wussy, backwater European country that would probably be a dictatorship today if not for the US, right?  I bet you spend a lot of time furiously writing letters to the editor, scolding smokers for buying cigarettes and generally making everyone around you wish for your death. 

I'm not saying everyone who buys a gun is a "nutjob". I'm saying the system in fact has no mechanism to exclude "nutjobs" or limit access to "responsible citizens". Because that would require psychic powers, which don't exist. Therefore, any "nutjob" who otherwise qualifies (no criminal history, and whatever else) can indeed own a gun. I was responding to your specific claim that (implied by striking "nutjob") "nutjobs" may not have guns, and that guns are limited to responsible citizens. That is not true in ANY country, regardless of how strict or lax their gun laws are, as far as I know.

DOA:

if you want to be free by having every Tom, Dick and Harry carry lethal weapons around

 

They can do that in every country. 

If you mean GUNS and LEGALLY, well then no, they cant do that here either.

PJH:

(Though given your 'tabloid' comment, if I'd seen any of those 4 stories in The Sun or the Daily Mail, I'd treat them with a great deal of contempt. This presupposes I'd be reading them in the first place....)

You're British (as evidenced by the fact that those names are what you went to from the term "tabloid"). Therefore you may not be aware that in the US the term "tabloid" applies instead to such highly reputable journalistic institutions as The National Enquirer, The Weekly World News, and Star Magazine, rather than to anything like The Sun or The Daily Mail

PJH:

Seung-Hui Cho:

• Wasn't in fact mentally ill?
• Did in fact obtain firearms with more than an 'instant background check'?

 

The failure wasn't in the law, the failure was in the lack of any coherent way to flag a citizen as 'mentally ill' thank your privacy movements. You can't have both privacy and tighter government control.

 

PJH:

'Muslim holy warriors':

• It isn't in fact possible for any member of the public (subject to previously mentioned exclusions elsethread) to legitimately purchase an AK47?

You cannot purchase an AK47 in 'assualt' configuration in most states (the federal law has twilighted). The 'assault' configuration is being able to select fire from full auto to semi automatic. There are many ak-47s that are semi automatic and are legal. There is no reason that weapon should be anymore illegal than any other rifle.

PJH:

I'll pass on the more sensible training aspect of that one, since it is, erm, sensible. I'd rather someone holding a firearm had been trained than not.

This is up to the CCW permit process. Look into it, you cannot just apply and get it in almost any remaining state.

PJH:

 Have all 4 articles got it that wrong?

Finding loopholes in the law does not mean anything to anyone. Just because we have a twisted, jumbled set of laws that most people cannot decipher doesn't mean we should add MORE laws.

 

What /is/ your point here anyway? That you can find single instance cases that prove nothing?

Random832:

Therefore, any "nutjob" who otherwise qualifies (no criminal history, and whatever else) can indeed own a gun.

 

And your recommendation is?

MasterPlanSoftware:

You have done nothing but present more rhetoric here.

It's called an metaphor. The second one is called an anecdote. That one is often part of a introduction to catch your readers attention and to make your arguments closer to real life.
Both are rethoric tools, but both are arguments too. My real argument in point 1 can be found too:

I've never heard of someone who directly got killed thanks to weed[.....]I do know that the number of people killed by people under the influence of weed is greatly outnumbered by the people that die because of DUI with alcohol or, for that matter, speeding in occupied areas

Those sound like real statistics to me!

They aren't. Where to so real-sounding? Maybe I'll insert this one next time: Warning: the previous line/statement/argument was ironic, meant to be humorous, exaggerated, fictional or a combination of this. This is often done in discussions to emphasize a line, statement or argument.

I see no reason to argue with you since you are obviously just trolling, and have no real clue of the argument.

I find it curious that whenever you are cornered in a discussion, do not have the upper-hand or are losing it you accuse opponents of trolling. If I use the wikipedia definition of trolling almost all posts are guilty to it. "You are blowing smoke out of your ass", "any nutjob can own a gun", "You're just a plain retard aren't you[....]in some wussy, backwater European country"; shall I continue?
I did not make any remark on someone personal (until now) and neither did I needlessly call names.
Warning: the previous paragraphs is an opinion and can thus not be used like a fact in a discussion. It could be classified as a fallacy of the type: personal attack. The author of the previous paragraph found it necessary to use this opinion to counter an example of this type of fallacy.

Most bank robberies around here don't happen with a gun either... I have seen gas station robberies with bows and arrows, shovels, rakes, etc . Many times there are no weapons even used. Did you have a point here?

While you accuse me of having no proog, I am not finding any of it here either. Surely you could've digged up an article of such an event.

dtech:

Ok, you gave to explain that to me. How can that cost lives? Next thing you're telling me is that WiFi in public building costs lives because all the poor people with EHS die.

I cannot figure out how this is an argument to my point 5.

I did not understand how not-allowing guns in public building can lead to more victims. Just as EHS will never lead to dead.

dtech:

don't get a gun with it if you buy 3 packs of milk at the local supermarket

Wow you got me there! Seriously, are you this stupid? Do you really believe it is easy to buy a gun here?

I find this a nice sum-up of the previous post: a needless sneer (troll/fallacy) on something thats obviously a exaggeration with a core of truth. PJH digged up the evidence already, so I'll evade my responsibility for evidence this time.

dtech:

Also, students and schoolboys won't get them to kill half their university or school...

If CCW was allowed on college campuses like everywhere else, do you think those cowards would have chosen a gun fight? Nope. They would have found someone who is an easier target to pick on. They were cowards, all of them.

dtech:

Yes, such incidents happen, but a lot less frequent if gun laws are strict.

Yes, because obviously they did not want to die. afaik, nearly everyone of them commited suicide either after a few kills or when police came near.

You might be able to prove GUN crime would lessen (not disappear) but overall crime would not lessen. Sorry, but I have seen no statistics that prove what you are saying.

Neither have I that prove yours. I did not say anywhere that crime will dissapear. I did say (or I do now) that a burglary won't end in a blood bath. I do say that non-professional crime will become a little less frequent and a lot less lethal.

Well, I'll mainly leave it to that. Persuading MPS (or at least let him admit that you have valid points) is like trying to create the grand canyon by spraying a mountain with a garden hose.

dtech:

While you accuse me of having no proog, I am not finding any of it here either.

 

You are the one stating fact and being called on it, I see no reason to take the time to present any articles or references to anyone. Either back up your statements, or retract.

dtech:

PJH digged up the evidence already, so I'll evade my responsibility for evidence this time.

No one has provided any proof, all you have done is sit there and spout typical anti gun rhetoric. "You can buy a gun at the supermarket!". What you said is patently false. When called on it you are just telling me someone else will provide evidence.

 

dtech:

Yes, because obviously they did not want to die. afaik, nearly everyone of them commited suicide either after a few kills or when police came near.

It has nothing to do with a fear of death. They would not have done it if they wouldn't have the easy picking/high body counts. They can count on it in a college because people are not allowed to CCW there. There is no need to worry about being stopped before making the front page. THAT is what they are after. An easy way to get on the front page. 

dtech:

Persuading MPS (or at least let him admit that you have valid points)

So, what are the valid points you have made? YOU YOURSELF have admitted several times they were all jokes and exaggerations! 

 I have created a monster.

DOA:

I have created a monster.

Yes, firing off your mouth on topics you are completely ignorant of will tend to upset people.  Especially if you advocate restricting the freedoms of those people and endangering their lives just because you are too lazy to question your own prejudices.

A monster?, a bit harsh. This is just one of those linux/windows, emacs/vim, violent islam/non-violent islam discussions. However this time its about gun control. I can sum up the rest of the discussion though.   "yes", "no", "yes", "no", "yes", "no", "yes", "no", "yes, and what about hitler", "no and i say something about godwins law".  This goes on until either one gets tired then somone takes that place or the discussion dies.

The funnest part is that the only interesting thing has already been said and got ignored. The fact that it doesn't really matter if statistics say either yes or no, because even if guns are made illegal to have for civilians, you just can't easily turn around a few hundred years of culture in a few years. In this case it would probebly take the proverbial ataturk of america to get such a change.

morbiuswilters:

DOA:

I have created a monster.

Yes, firing off your mouth on topics you are completely ignorant of will tend to upset people.  Especially if you advocate restricting the freedoms of those people and endangering their lives just because you are too lazy to question your own prejudices.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

MasterPlanSoftware:

What /is/ your point here anyway?

You asked for research. I did it. What's /your/ point?