Guns

[Famine]

restrict children’s freedoms

Children's freedoms are restricted by being - and because they are - children.

Also have you not seen the physical damage to children's spines from routinely and improperly carrying unnecessarily heavy backpacks?

 

[PocketZeven]

Children's freedoms are restricted by being - and because they are - children.

Also have you not seen the physical damage to children's spines from routinely and improperly carrying unnecessarily heavy backpacks?

Do schools in the Uk have metal detectors, security guards, searches etc.? Is there a constant serious threat and fear of school shootings in the UK? Do you think gun regulations in the uk have any influence on the risk of mass shootings in the UK? Or are they accidental?

Spinal damage? A bit far fetched but that more of a good argument against schools requiring children to take all their books of the day home and to school. I remember I had to bring very heavy backpacks in my schooldays, but luckily that hasn’t resulted in any chronic damage. How would you recommend children to take home homework? Do all schools in USA and uk provide lunch at school? In my country, children are required to bring their own lunch and beverages to school.

 

[Famine]

Do schools in the Uk have metal detectors, security guards, searches etc.?

To varying degrees, yes. Certainly our schools are surrounded by security fencing, with gates only unlocked when the kids are coming or going from school. Exterior doors are all locked, with keycard or keypad access.

Is there a constant serious threat and fear of school shootings in the UK?

Shootings... not so much. Stabbings and paedophiles, hell yes. Kids are also not averse to moving contraband.

Spinal damage? A bit far fetched

Not even slightly.

Children don't carry them properly (one strap over one shoulder, instead of both straps and the waist belt) and they're commonly far in excess of the recommended maximum of 10% of their bodyweight. This leads to neck, shoulder and back damage to developing bodies, causing issues later in life.

How would you recommend children to take home homework?

Don't. I don't really know why we need to make children work for eight hours a day and then take work home to do more work. Or - and this is a radical idea on an internet forum - electronically.

Do all schools in USA and uk provide lunch at school? In my country, children are required to bring their own lunch and beverages to school.

I can't answer as I've not been to all schools in both countries. I'd be surprised if it were the case, particularly in the USA, and further surprised that where a school canteen exists there is no requirement for parents - either in advance, or directly via the children - to pay for it.

However I'm more surprised that more heavily socialised countries, where healthcare is socialised, don't think feeding children during their state-mandated education should be...

 

[Tornado]

You fall under a certain income levels and the school foots most/all of the bill for lunches and is reimbursed by the state. No idea if it is different in other states.

 

[PocketZeven]

To varying degrees, yes. Certainly our schools are surrounded by security fencing, with gates only unlocked when the kids are coming or going from school. Exterior doors are all locked, with keycard or keypad access.

Shootings... not so much. Stabbings and paedophiles, hell yes. Kids are also not averse to moving contraband.

Not even slightly.

Children don't carry them properly (one strap over one shoulder, instead of both straps and the waist belt) and they're commonly far in excess of the recommended maximum of 10% of their bodyweight. This leads to neck, shoulder and back damage to developing bodies, causing issues later in life.

Don't. I don't really know why we need to make children work for eight hours a day and then take work home to do more work. Or - and this is a radical idea on an internet forum - electronically.

I can't answer as I've not been to all schools in both countries. I'd be surprised if it were the case, particularly in the USA, and further surprised that where a school canteen exists there is no requirement for parents - either in advance, or directly via the children - to pay for it.

However I'm more surprised that more heavily socialised countries, where healthcare is socialised, don't think feeding children during their state-mandated education should be...

At elementary and kindergarten level we also have gates locked for safety, but not for high schools. People can move quite freely. It just blows my mind imagining mandatory searches and the need for metal detectors. But in a country where guns are more easily available I understand there is a risk kids are carrying guns.

Do you think gun laws influence the lower number of school shootings in the UK?

In the end I agree ideally the children shouldn’t need backpacks at all. However it would be better to create an environment to ban them to protect their health and not for safety concerns.

Feeding children in my opinion is the responsibility of the parent though, not the school. For me it’s logical, because you decide your child’s diet. You are exaggerating about countries being heavily socialized in Europe. In China lunch are provided by the state at school.

Edit:

You fall under a certain income levels and the school foots most/all of the bill for lunches and is reimbursed by the state. No idea if it is different in other states.

What is the average budget for a child’s meal per day?

 

[Danoff]

Why?
I can only assume because this is the gun thread to try and stop guns being brought into school.

Better ban baggy clothes also then.

Yea doing a search at the door is much easier if you're not also searching backpacks, dufflebags, and musical instrument cases. Baggy clothing can also be banned from schools. School rules for clothing are extensive.

In my country banning backpacks would be a ludicrous idea. How would they take home homework or bring lunch? (Do all schools in US provide food etc.)

I love this so much. I want to print it out and put it on my refrigerator. Banning backpacks for kids at schools is ludicrous but banning guns for people to use to protect themselves isn't! Ban backpacks? How would they take home their homework?!? Better to ban guns and leave people unable to defend themselves. Priceless.

Ok one more, one more.

Ban backpacks? Do you know how logistically difficult that is? Better to call a constitutional convention, overturn the 2nd amendment, and attempt to confiscate millions of firearms.

Sorry, I know this is a little bit of a mischaracterization of your recent attitude toward bans, where you have backed off to heavy licensing. I'm doing a little bit of a strawman here. But it's just too fun, I can't help it. If you want to see this as directly applicable to your position, just consider it a response to your support of the New Zealand semi-auto rifle ban.

Have all these school shootings have in common that they smuggled the weapons in with a backpack?

I love this one too. Everything has to be a response to something doesn't it? We can't think ahead, or assess security concerns from a wide perspective. We have to simply knee-jerk respond to current events. Except for gun bans! In that case, if someone obtains a gun illegally, we should still crack down on how hard it is to obtain one legally.

So, to answer your question, the Columbine shooters used backpacks to transport pipe bombs (not guns!) and ammunition, and used trench coats (also bannable, just saying) to bring in long guns. In the shooting this week, presumably in honor of Columbine, shooters brought in guns in guitar cases, which I'm lumping in with backpacks.

If one really has bad intentions there alternative ways to smuggle in a gun then with a backpack. A child can just walk out from school grounds to get one from outside school grounds and star shooting during a lunch break or recess.

Not really, no. And I did mention something about no longer allowing Juniors and Seniors to leave school grounds.

A better solution would be to better fund education,

I'm completely failing to see how education addresses the shooting this week or the Columbine shooting it was modeled after.

healthcare and improve regulation on guns and not cutting their budget.

I'm also having trouble seeing how healthcare helps. Maybe if you think we could get to these kids during the few years where they go downhill and get them some counselling. But of course I didn't say we couldn't do that. I said I think we should ban backpacks at public schools. Gun regulation would help, and I've proposed one specific gun regulation to address these shootings in particular. That regulation includes not giving 18 year olds legal access to guns, or a minimum, no legal access for students currently enrolled in high school.

Which will only worsen the problem. Even if banning guns is off the table, one should consider to the best you can to prevent individuals with mental health problems to obtain them. Registering guns on a national level, having a licensing system, more extensive background checks, medical approval requirements etc.

All of which are also on the table.

I live in a world where schools don’t have security guards, don’t have metal detectors, locked doors and children never ever need to be searched. (Seems like a prison to me)

I live in the US, where we have a school shooting problem.

Wouldn’t it be much better to create such an environment then applying security measures that restrict children’s freedoms just to protect them from potential shootings?

Children do not have a right to backpacks in public schools.

In the end I agree ideally the children shouldn’t need backpacks at all. However it would be better to create an environment to ban them to protect their health and not for safety concerns.

Shootings are not a legitimate reason to improve safety by removing backpacks? We have to pretend that we can fix this problem with legislation? But concerns for health (not because of bullet holes) is a valid reason? You're getting hard to follow here.

Feeding children in my opinion is the responsibility of the parent though, not the school.

As is healthcare and education. And the school can (and does) charge for that. Public schools here have cafeterias where food is served. Parents are charged. Some parents qualify for state assistance.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yea doing a search at the door is much easier if you're not also searching backpacks, dufflebags, and musical instrument cases. Baggy clothing can also be banned from schools. School rules for clothing are extensive.



I love this so much. I want to print it out and put it on my refrigerator. Banning backpacks for kids at schools is ludicrous but banning guns for people to use to protect themselves isn't! Ban backpacks? How would they take home their homework?!? Better to ban guns and leave people unable to defend themselves. Priceless.

Ok one more, one more.

Ban backpacks? Do you know how logistically difficult that is? Better to call a constitutional convention, overturn the 2nd amendment, and attempt to confiscate millions of firearms.

Sorry, I know this is a little bit of a mischaracterization of your recent attitude toward bans, where you have backed off to heavy licensing. I'm doing a little bit of a strawman here. But it's just too fun, I can't help it. If you want to see this as directly applicable to your position, just consider it a response to your support of the New Zealand semi-auto rifle ban.



I love this one too. Everything has to be a response to something doesn't it? We can't think ahead, or assess security concerns from a wide perspective. We have to simply knee-jerk respond to current events. Except for gun bans! In that case, if someone obtains a gun illegally, we should still crack down on how hard it is to obtain one legally.

So, to answer your question, the Columbine shooters used backpacks to transport pipe bombs (not guns!) and ammunition, and used trench coats (also bannable, just saying) to bring in long guns. In the shooting this week, presumably in honor of Columbine, shooters brought in guns in guitar cases, which I'm lumping in with backpacks.



Not really, no. And I did mention something about no longer allowing Juniors and Seniors to leave school grounds.



I'm completely failing to see how education addresses the shooting this week or the Columbine shooting it was modeled after.



I'm also having trouble seeing how healthcare helps. Maybe if you think we could get to these kids during the few years where they go downhill and get them some counselling. But of course I didn't say we couldn't do that. I said I think we should ban backpacks at public schools. Gun regulation would help, and I've proposed one specific gun regulation to address these shootings in particular. That regulation includes not giving 18 year olds legal access to guns, or a minimum, no legal access for students currently enrolled in high school.



All of which are also on the table.



I live in the US, where we have a school shooting problem.



Children do not have a right to backpacks in public schools.



Shootings are not a legitimate reason to improve safety by removing backpacks? We have to pretend that we can fix this problem with legislation? But concerns for health (not because of bullet holes) is a valid reason? You're getting hard to follow here.



As is healthcare and education. And the school can (and does) charge for that. Public schools here have cafeterias where food is served. Parents are charged. Some parents qualify for state assistance.

I wasn’t at all calling for banning guns in this conversation. I was saying that guns should be licensed and registered. 18+ is a good idea, but isn’t that unconstitutional?

To be fair from a European perspective banning backpacks is quite out there. They are a necessity for all school going children. I was trying deliberately avoiding “banning guns” territory. Also backpacks don’t kill people, people do. But in all seriousness you won’t need to have guns to protect yourself if there isn’t a threat where you would need one. Like in Europe where I honestly don’t need one for protection.

In the logic of “leave people unable to defend themselves” shouldn’t you just arm all the children to protect themselves against a possible shooter? No of course not! Guns shouldn’t be needed to protect yourself in the first place, it is much better to try to eliminate the threat. Even if you take out guns out of the equation, knives or stabbing weapons are even much easily smuggled in schools then firearms. One could even use objects or tools on school grounds to kill people. Like knives, hammers etc.

I think by providing better (mental) healthcare to all and schools with more funding and hopefully better teachers and staff, children that are bullied or have mental health problems can be detected and helped much earlier and prevent acts of violence. Why is it for example that violent attacks by students on other students happen much less often in Europe? You should tackle that problem structurally then banning backpacks. Backpacks or bags have been used for as long there have been schools. Where they genuinely considered a risk before?

 

[Daz555]

However I'm more surprised that more heavily socialised countries, where healthcare is socialised, don't think feeding children during their state-mandated education should be...

In the UK school meals are free for all children in the first 3 years of schooling (around the ages of 5 to 7). Kids in nursery/pre-school get free milk in addition to meals. After that free school meals are are available for children of families below a certain threshold (means-tested). Virtually all schools provide onsite hot meals and the food provided must comply to the government standards laid out for school meals. The average cost for a 2 course school meal is about £2.

 

[Danoff]

I wasn’t at all calling for banning guns in this conversation. I was saying that guns should be licensed and registered. 18+ is a good idea, but isn’t that unconstitutional?

Doesn't look like it. The definition of adulthood varies by state and from topic to topic.

Also backpacks don’t kill people, people do.

I'm glad you're also enjoying the role reversal here. I'd have to contend with that if I weren't talking about public property and children.

But in all seriousness you won’t need to have guns to protect yourself if there isn’t a threat where you would need one.

That's true! Totally dream fairyland but it's true.

Like in Europe where I honestly don’t need one for protection.

I live in the US, where we have a school shooting problem.

In the logic of “leave people unable to defend themselves” shouldn’t you just arm all the children to protect themselves against a possible shooter? No of course not!

Because they're kids. Also it is the job of the law to protect people, but adults don't have to leave that responsibility up to them. Children, on the otherhand, do often have to leave the responsibility up to them.

However, one kid, this week in Colorado, didn't leave it up to the adults. A 6th grader heard shots and grabbed a bat to in order to "go out fighting" (I think these were his words) against his attackers. I'm glad he fought back. I want everyone who can to fight back against these murderers.

Guns shouldn’t be needed to protect yourself in the first place, it is much better to try to eliminate the threat.

Ok... but in the meantime... backpacks.

Even if you take out guns out of the equation, knives or stabbing weapons are even much easily smuggled in schools then firearms.

Ah the role reversal. Knives and other weapons are more difficult to smuggle in to schools if kids don't have backpacks. Also pipe bombs. See, I'm not particularly hung up on one specific weapon. I'm looking for ways to limit loss of life here, not just hammering an agenda on a specific tool.

Where they genuinely considered a risk before?

They should be now. This week a guitar case was used to perpetrate a school shooting in honor of a school shooting that partially relied upon backpacks to bring in weapons.

 

[PocketZeven]

Doesn't look like it. The definition of adulthood varies by state and from topic to topic.



I'm glad you're also enjoying the role reversal here. I'd have to contend with that if I weren't talking about public property and children.



That's true! Totally dream fairyland but it's true.



I live in the US, where we have a school shooting problem.



Because they're kids. Also it is the job of the law to protect people, but adults don't have to leave that responsibility up to them. Children, on the otherhand, do often have to leave the responsibility up to them.

However, one kid, this week in Colorado, didn't leave it up to the adults. A 6th grader heard shots and grabbed a bat to in order to "go out fighting" (I think these were his words) against his attackers. I'm glad he fought back. I want everyone who can to fight back against these murderers.



Ok... but in the meantime... backpacks.



Ah the role reversal. Knives and other weapons are more difficult to smuggle in to schools if kids don't have backpacks. Also pipe bombs. See, I'm not particularly hung up on one specific weapon. I'm looking for ways to limit loss of life here, not just hammering an agenda on a specific tool.



They should be now. This week a guitar case was used to perpetrate a school shooting in honor of a school shooting that partially relied upon backpacks to bring in weapons.

I guess I live in a dream fairyland. Just like probably all other countries in the developed world.

If you meant banning backpacks as a short term solutions, i can see logic on that. But what I was trying to argue is that the us should come with a solution quickly that is long term.

Do all schools in the USA have mandatory searches to every student when entering? Without smuggling there are still potential weapons in and around school. How would you prevent that kind of violence?

What changed then between before and now, necessitating a backpack ban? Those are the solutions that the country needs on top of a short term backpack ban.

At least we agree that to prevent a shooting in a school people should do their best to prevent weapons into said school.

 

[Danoff]

I guess I live in a dream fairyland. Just like probably all other countries in the developed world.

Wait... you live in a place without crime?

If you meant banning backpacks as a short term solutions, i can see logic on that. But what I was trying to argue is that the us should come with a solution quickly that is long term.

It seems like increasing standard of living has been a fairly effective long term solution at reducing crime across the board.

Do all schools in the USA have mandatory searches to every student when entering? Without smuggling there are still potential weapons in and around school. How would you prevent that kind of violence?

Start big, work small. I don't need to prevent someone from using a stapler against another kid to suggest that being able to bring a backpack full of pipe bombs or a guitar case with guns is a problem.

What changed then between before and now, necessitating a backpack ban?

Just a recognition of the security problem and the people willing to exploit it.

Those are the solutions that the country needs on top of a short term backpack ban.

Sure.

 

[Famine]

You are exaggerating about countries being heavily socialized in Europe. In China lunch are provided by the state at school.

Oh look, you conveniently forgot a word:

However I'm more surprised that more heavily socialised countries, where healthcare is socialised, don't think feeding children during their state-mandated education should be...

 

[Tornado]

What changed then between before and now, necessitating a backpack ban?

What Danoff is suggesting overall isn't a radical sentiment in response to this specific thing. When Columbine happened, schools all over the country banned dusters for exactly the same reason Danoff is talking about backpacks.

Twenty years removed from Columbine and wearing one still makes people automatically on edge and and the wearer of special interest for whatever type of enforcement is present in an area; and I wouldn't be surprised if they were still banned in the school I went to at the time.

 

[PocketZeven]

Wait... you live in a place without crime?



It seems like increasing standard of living has been a fairly effective long term solution at reducing crime across the board.



Start big, work small. I don't need to prevent someone from using a stapler against another kid to suggest that being able to bring a backpack full of pipe bombs or a guitar case with guns is a problem.




Just a recognition of the security problem and the people willing to exploit it.




Sure.

What Danoff is suggesting overall isn't a radical sentiment in response to this specific thing. When Columbine happened, schools all over the country banned dusters for exactly the same reason Danoff is talking about backpacks.

Twenty years removed from Columbine and wearing one still makes people automatically on edge and and the wearer of special interest for whatever type of enforcement is present in an area; and I wouldn't be surprised if they were still banned in the school I went to at the time.

You answered a dream fairy land as a place where people dont need guns for protection. Well we do have crime, but yet the vast majority dont need a gun for protection.

Perhaps they have improved for you personally, but cuts in healthcare, cuts in education, cuts in environmental programs and higher inflation, increasing deficit etc. do not project higher standards of living in my opinion. I am also not so sure that in those areas where these shootings occur the standards are actually increasing. It would be if healthcare coverage for example was also increasing.

Not denying at all backpack ban can be effective short term, but I have been reminded regularely that banning weapons does not work. So why would it work on a smaller scale.

I know overall violent crime has decreased, however mass shootings have increased. I have no theory to explain that though.

Oh look, you conveniently forgot a word:

Excuse me sir! But I didnt try to "quote". even then adding "more" doesnt reduce the weight of "more heavily socialized" or "heavily socialized". Which I think was an exaggeration. "more socialized" would have been more appropiate.

 

[Danoff]

You answered a dream fairy land as a place where people dont need guns for protection. Well we do have crime, but yet the vast majority dont need a gun for protection.

Well what do you mean "need"? I mean I think I'd want a gun in your country as well.

Not denying at all backpack ban can be effective short term, but I have been reminded regularely that banning weapons does not work. So why would it work on a smaller scale.

Guns are already banned in public schools. You're not supposed to have them there, and I'm not advocating for lifting that ban. I'm advocating for making it harder to defeat that ban.

 

[Famine]

But I didnt try to "quote". even then adding "more" doesnt reduce the weight of "more heavily socialized" or "heavily socialized".

Reduce the weight? What are you going on about? It's a comparative. It compares one thing to another - in this case how heavily socialised (with ise - I am not American, so I don't use the ize you've attributed to me for some reason) countries are. The USA is less heavily socialised, the Netherlands is more heavily socialised.

And thus I am surprised that a nation more heavily socialised than the USA regards healthcare as something that must be free at the point of use for all, but does not think children, while at their mandatory education, should receive food free at the point of use. Especially when you then say it's the parents' responsibility to feed them, like it's not their responsibility to educate them or look after their health...

 

[PocketZeven]

Well what do you mean "need"? I mean I think I'd want a gun in your country as well.



Guns are already banned in public schools. You're not supposed to have them there, and I'm not advocating for lifting that ban. I'm advocating for making it harder to defeat that ban.

Why would you want one in my country?

I was trying to imply if such a ban is somewhat effective on a small scale (schools), shouldnt it be banned on a bigger scale? (nationwide). Banning open carry, public buildings, private buildings etc.

Reduce the weight? What are you going on about? It's a comparative. It compares one thing to another - in this case how heavily socialised (with ise - I am not American, so I don't use the ize you've attributed to me for some reason) countries are. The USA is less heavily socialised, the Netherlands is more heavily socialised.

And thus I am surprised that a nation more heavily socialised than the USA regards healthcare as something that must be free at the point of use for all, but does not think children, while at their mandatory education, should receive food free at the point of use. Especially when you then say it's the parents' responsibility to feed them, like it's not their responsibility to educate them or look after their health...

Remove the "heavily" and you end up with more socialized, which also would have been more accurate. Heavily implies socialized in the neighbourhood of Cuba or China.

 

[Famine]

Remove the "heavily" and you end up with more socialized, which also would have been more accurate. Heavily implies socialized in the neighbourhood of Cuba or China.

Yeah... no.

You can't play this "I know English better than you" card in the same thread you've also played "I don't know English very well so please excuse my mistakes" card.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yeah... no.

You can't play this "I know English better than you" card in the same thread you've also played "I don't know English very well so please excuse my mistakes" card.

I wasnt implying my english is better. Heavily translates well to my first language and even in my language using "heavy" or more "heavily" means. It implies much more socialized then a country that is only "more socialized".

heavily
/ˈhɛvɪli/
adverb
adverb: heavily

1. 1.
   to a great degree; in large amounts.
   "it was raining heavily"
   synoniemen: laboriously, slowly, ponderously, steadily, deliberately, woodenly, stiffly, with heavy steps, with leaden steps; Meer
   with difficulty, painfully, awkwardly, clumsily;
   gloomily, dejectedly, sluggishly, dully
   "Dad walked heavily towards the door"
   decisively, utterly, completely, thoroughly, totally, conclusively, roundly, soundly, absolutely;
   informalbigly
   "our troops were heavily defeated"
   excessively, to excess, immoderately, copiously, inordinately, intemperately, a great deal, too much, very much, overmuch, to a great extent, to too great an extent, without restraint, without control
   "he started drinking heavily"
   densely, closely, thickly, compactly
   "the area is heavily planted with pine trees"
   deeply, extremely, very, greatly, exceedingly, enormously, terribly, tremendously, awfully, profoundly;
   informalseriously;
   majorly;
   informaljolly, ever so
   "I became heavily involved in politics"
   antoniemen: easily, quickly, narrowly, moderately, lightly, to a limited extent
   • to a large extent; very or very much.
     "the country is heavily dependent on banana exports"
2. 2.
   with a lot of force or effort; with weight.
   "she fell heavily to the ground"

edit: The mistakes I make is wrong spelling, sentence structure or incorrect use of proverbs. Not the misuse of adverbs.

 

[Famine]

Heavily translates

Great. Don't care. You don't get to play this card after playing the "I make mistakes in English" card.

What I said was accurate and you inferred whatever you wanted.

 

[PocketZeven]

Great. Don't care. You don't get to play this card after playing the "I make mistakes in English" card.

What I said was accurate and you inferred whatever you wanted.

I am not playing any card sir. The Netherlands isnt more "heavily" socialized then the USA or UK. Healthcare isnt even fully socialized like in the UK. We pay premiums here for insurance so that part was also incorrect.

 

[Danoff]

Why would you want one in my country?

Violent crime?

I was trying to imply if such a ban is somewhat effective on a small scale (schools), shouldnt it be banned on a bigger scale? (nationwide).

I'm not sure why that would follow. The issue in the US of course is that the ban isn't working in schools. But aside from that, there are a ton of reasons why bans could work in at a small scale and not a large scale. Some of those reasons are practical, and some of them are principled, such as adhering to human rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

Violent crime?



I'm not sure why that would follow. The issue in the US of course is that the ban isn't working in schools. But aside from that, there are a ton of reasons why bans could work in at a small scale and not a large scale. Some of those reasons are practical, and some of them are principled, such as adhering to human rights.

Violent crime is much lower here in holland then the USA, why would you still want one?

Which human right would be broken?

 

[Danoff]

Violent crime is much lower here in holland then the USA, why would you still want one?

But not gone right? So yes. I suppose you could catch me out at some level of practicality. There would be some level where my chances of being the victim of violent crime are so remote that I wouldn't want a gun because it would represent more of a liability than anything else. Keep in mind they don't offer me any enjoyment. I don't get anything out of target shooting for recreation.

But just because I wouldn't want a gun, doesn't mean I would then start telling other people they couldn't have one.

Which human right would be broken?

The US supreme court says self-defense. I see it more as a property rights issue personally.

 

[Famine]

I am not playing any card sir.

You absolutely are. You're acting like what you inferred from my sentence is what the sentence actually says, and thus acting like you understand English better than the person who writes in English for a living - despite having played the "I make mistakes in English because it's not my first language" card several times earlier in the thread.

I for one look forward to the next three days where you absolutely will not concede you just read something the way you wanted, like the last time in this thread where you protested the meanings of "tool" and "weapon" and acted like your definitions were correct while apologising for occasional poor English.


The level of socialism is more heavy - heavier - across Europe compared to the USA, (which has some socialist policies and laws now). Thus European countries are more heavily socialised compared to the USA. Comparatives.

China is even more heavily socialised. More comparatives. Not relevant comparatives, but still comparatives.

The Netherlands isnt more "heavily" socialized then the USA or UK. Healthcare isnt even fully socialized like in the UK.

What does the UK have to do with anything, except also being more heavily socialized than the USA?

 

[PocketZeven]

But not gone right? So yes. I suppose you could catch me out at some level of practicality. There would be some level where my chances of being the victim of violent crime are so remote that I wouldn't want a gun because it would represent more of a liability than anything else. Keep in mind they don't offer me any enjoyment. I don't get anything out of target shooting for recreation.

But just because I wouldn't want a gun, doesn't mean I would then start telling other people they couldn't have one.




The US supreme court says self-defense. I see it more as a property rights issue personally.

If hypothetically (just humor me on this) it was scientifically proven that banning guns would reduce violent crime and save lives. Would you give up your guns?

You absolutely are. You're acting like what you inferred from my sentence is what the sentence actually says, and thus acting like you understand English better than the person who writes in English for a living - despite having played the "I make mistakes in English because it's not my first language" card several times earlier in the thread.

I for one look forward to the next three days where you absolutely will not concede you just read something the way you wanted, like the last time in this thread where you protested the meanings of "tool" and "weapon" and acted like your definitions were correct while apologising for occasional poor English.


The level of socialism is more heavy - heavier - across Europe compared to the USA, (which has some socialist policies and laws now). Thus European countries are more heavily socialised compared to the USA. Comparatives.

China is even more heavily socialised. More comparatives. Not relevant comparatives, but still comparatives.

What does the UK have to do with anything, except also being more heavily socialized than the USA?

Nope. I was only adressing an inaccuracy. The netherlands is not a more heavily socialized country and also healthcare isnt socialized. You made 2 incorrect assumptions. This has notthing to do with playing any card. I did not mean to say your english or grammar was incorrect, but that the Netherlands is not "more heavily socialized". I did not infer my english is better at all, I have already said multiple times my english is not really good.

Isnt more and heavily combined like in most language a double positive? So it means more then "more" and more then "heavily"? Does "more heavily socialized" mean the exact same as "more socialized" or not? Like for example: China is heavily socialized and N-korea is more heavily socialized. Doesnt more heavily socialized suggest that the netherlands even more socialized then just more socialized? Perhaps I made a wrong assumption about the double positive and that is where my knowledge of the english language made a mistake.

Again, I was not criticising your english, but the pointing out an inaccuracy in the statement.

edit: corrected spelling

 

[Danoff]

If hypothetically (just humor me on this) it was scientifically proven that banning guns would reduce violent crime and save lives. Would you give up your guns?

No, I'm not a utilitarian. Did you scientifically prove that it would reduce violent crime and save lives for me specifically to give mine up? That seems somewhat impossible.

 

[Famine]

Nope. I was only adressing an inaccuracy. The netherlands is not a more heavily socialized country and also healthcare isnt socialized. You made 2 incorrect assumptions.

Yes, you're going to stop doing this.

Quote me saying that healthcare is socialised in the Netherlands. You won't be able to, because I didn't. This is the third time you have made something up that I haven't said in this forum since March, and the third time you'll be completely unable to quote me saying what you say I did (the previous twice you didn't even attempt to meet the "quote me" challenge).

Once wasn't acceptable.


As for the Netherlands not being more heavily socialised than the USA, even though that's not a claim I made, the Dutch government or other state bodies own, or has majority holding in, banking (SNS/De Volksbank), trains (NS) and rail (ProRail), gas supply and transmission (Gasterra, formerly Gasunie), electricity transmission (TenneT, Alliander, Enexis, PZEM), and airports (Schiphol Group), and until recently included electricity supply (Nuon, Essent, Eneco) too.

You can point to some similar companies in the USA that receive public money - Amtrak, for example, or the Bank of North Dakota - but it's far less clear-cut that these businesses are state-owned, and far less widespread or wide-reaching.

Do you know how I'd compare a country that has more businesses under public ownership to one that has fewer (or none)? I'd say it was more heavily socalised. I didn't, but I certainly would have done if I had.

I did not mean to say your english or grammar was incorrect, but that the Netherlands is not "more heavily socialized".

Here's you objecting to the use of the word "heavily" as a word and literally quoting definitions to try and prove I used the wrong word:

Excuse me sir! But I didnt try to "quote". even then adding "more" doesnt reduce the weight of "more heavily socialized" or "heavily socialized". Which I think was an exaggeration. "more socialized" would have been more appropiate.

Heavily translates well to my first language and even in my language using "heavy" or more "heavily" means. It implies much more socialized then a country that is only "more socialized".

heavily
/ˈhɛvɪli/
adverb
adverb: heavily

1. 1.
   to a great degree; in large amounts.
   "it was raining heavily"
   synoniemen: laboriously, slowly, ponderously, steadily, deliberately, woodenly, stiffly, with heavy steps, with leaden steps; Meer
   with difficulty, painfully, awkwardly, clumsily;
   gloomily, dejectedly, sluggishly, dully
   "Dad walked heavily towards the door"
   decisively, utterly, completely, thoroughly, totally, conclusively, roundly, soundly, absolutely;
   informalbigly
   "our troops were heavily defeated"
   excessively, to excess, immoderately, copiously, inordinately, intemperately, a great deal, too much, very much, overmuch, to a great extent, to too great an extent, without restraint, without control
   "he started drinking heavily"
   densely, closely, thickly, compactly
   "the area is heavily planted with pine trees"
   deeply, extremely, very, greatly, exceedingly, enormously, terribly, tremendously, awfully, profoundly;
   informalseriously;
   majorly;
   informaljolly, ever so
   "I became heavily involved in politics"
   antoniemen: easily, quickly, narrowly, moderately, lightly, to a limited extent
   • to a large extent; very or very much.
     "the country is heavily dependent on banana exports"
2. 2.
   with a lot of force or effort; with weight.
   "she fell heavily to the ground"

Do you know what's not in there? Any objection to or evidence to counter my supposed declaration that the Netherlands is more heavily socialised than the USA - which I didn't make - only objections to the appropriate use of the words therein.

This angle of objecting to the accuracy of the statement (which, again, I didn't make) is a brand new one you've started on today.


So, we're still at my incredulity that states that are more heavily socialised, where healthcare is socialised, don't think feeding children during their state-mandated education should be...

... and just so you're not still flapping about on that statement (where the Netherlands is not mentioned; I didn't even mention Europe, like you originally claimed), the UK has a single-payer healthcare service (the peak of types of nationalised health) but children are only fed by the state during their state-mandated education if they're under a means-tested threshold. That'd be a more heavily socialised state, where healthcare is socialised but doesn't think feeding children during their state-mandated education should be.

I don't know much about the Netherlands and its healthcare, except that the government insures all citizens for long-term treatment (and disability), but since I didn't mention the Netherlands (and why would I?) I don't know why I'd be required to.


Still, there's 2.75 days left for arguing about the meaning of a single word on this one. Yay.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, I'm not a utilitarian. Did you scientifically prove that it would reduce violent crime and save lives for me specifically to give mine up? That seems somewhat impossible.

Nope, such a thing is hard to conclusively prove with so many factors. Any corellations i found can admittedly be quite easily rebuked with other arguments. I was just trying to find out if owning guns was cultural or reasons of actual safety concerns for you personally.

Yes, you're going to stop doing this.

Quote me saying that healthcare is socialised in the Netherlands. You won't be able to, because I didn't. This is the third time you have made something up that I haven't said in this forum since March, and the third time you'll be completely unable to quote me saying what you say I did (the previous twice you didn't even attempt to meet the "quote me" challenge).

Once wasn't acceptable.


As for the Netherlands not being more heavily socialised than the USA, even though that's not a claim I made, the Dutch government or other state bodies own, or has majority holding in, banking (SNS/De Volksbank), trains (NS) and rail (ProRail), gas supply and transmission (Gasterra, formerly Gasunie), electricity transmission (TenneT, Alliander, Enexis, PZEM), and airports (Schiphol Group), and until recently included electricity supply (Nuon, Essent, Eneco) too.

You can point to some similar companies in the USA that receive public money - Amtrak, for example, or the Bank of North Dakota - but it's far less clear-cut that these businesses are state-owned, and far less widespread or wide-reaching.

Do you know how I'd compare a country that has more businesses under public ownership to one that has fewer (or none)? I'd say it was more heavily socalised. I didn't, but I certainly would have done if I had.

Here's you objecting to the use of the word "heavily" as a word and literally quoting definitions to try and prove I used the wrong word:


Do you know what's not in there? Any objection to or evidence to counter my supposed declaration that the Netherlands is more heavily socialised than the USA - which I didn't make - only objections to the appropriate use of the words therein.

This angle of objecting to the accuracy of the statement (which, again, I didn't make) is a brand new one you've started on today.


So, we're still at my incredulity that states that are more heavily socialised, where healthcare is socialised, don't think feeding children during their state-mandated education should be...

... and just so you're not still flapping about on that statement (where the Netherlands is not mentioned; I didn't even mention Europe, like you originally claimed), the UK has a single-payer healthcare service (the peak of types of nationalised health) but children are only fed by the state during their state-mandated education if they're under a means-tested threshold. That'd be a more heavily socialised state, where healthcare is socialised but doesn't think feeding children during their state-mandated education should be.

I don't know much about the Netherlands and its healthcare, except that the government insures all citizens for long-term treatment (and disability), but since I didn't mention the Netherlands (and why would I?) I don't know why I'd be required to.


Still, there's 2.75 days left for arguing about the meaning of a single word on this one. Yay.

I never criticized your English or grammar. I repeatedly pointed out the incorrect use of the netherlands being heavily socialized. If more heavily socialized does not have the same weight as in more heavily then perhaps I am wrong, because (you guessed it) English not being my first language. In Dutch such use infers very or extremely.

I did not claim the netherlands was not more socialized then the USA. I know it is. My apologies I admittedly incorrectly assumed a comparison. Probably because I assumed “more” implied a comparison.

So you realized that healthcare (and the netherlands) isn’t as socialized like you thought it was. But you did refer to the netherlands as having socialized healthcare. Since I was speaking about school meals in my country.

However I'm more surprised that more heavily socialised countries, where healthcare is socialised, don't think feeding children during their state-mandated education should be...

In direct reaction to:

In my country, children are required to bring their own lunch and beverages to school.

“My country” being the netherlands.
I made my peace, you seem incapable to admit a misunderstanding or even a mistake.

 

[Famine]

I never criticized your English or grammar. I repeatedly pointed out the incorrect use of the netherlands being heavily socialized.

I just quoted your posts complaining that heavily was the wrong word, but you're still pretending you didn't.

But you did refer to the netherlands as having socialized healthcare.

You just quoted the post (well, one part of it), and it contained no reference whatsoever to the Netherlands - or any other country - but you're still pretending it does.

In direct reaction to:

And even that isn't true because you've not only missed off a part of your own post that I quoted but an entire paragraph of actual direct response (to the question you haven't included) in-between!

I made my peace, you seem incapable to admit a misunderstanding or even a mistake.

Ah yes, you crop my posts and lie about what I said, reinvent what you said, lie about what I said some more, reinvent what you said a bit more, and then somehow I'm the unreasonable person who can't admit to a mistake I never made... Naughty me.


2.25 days.