Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

gun controle gone wrong again.

Posted Oct 6, '12 at 9:59am

Bluydee

Bluydee

3,548 posts

he united a country my killing massive amounts of people for no reason. ***** about every woman he came across whit.
the only reason he united people was because everyone feared him.
if you just said anything he didn't like. you were dead.

his laws are better then usa's current laws?
sorry im not a fan of the usa laws myself. but atleast they do not kill entire city's in their own territory to show the rest of their citizens that they have to obay the law.
ofcourse out of fear they will obay the law. but does that justice the death of a entire city?

it's good to be proud of your nations history. but you can also take it a step to far.


All bolded things are wrong. They also weren't living in fear of Chingis Khan. In fact, they were mostly happy.
 

Posted Oct 6, '12 at 11:07am

Jacen96

Jacen96

3,114 posts

1 66 million Second World War 20C
2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C
40 million Genghis Khan 13C
4 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
5 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C
6 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C
20 million Joseph Stalin 20C
8 18½ million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C
9 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
10 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C
11 15 million First World War 20C
15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C
13 13 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
14 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C
10 million Congo Free State 19C-20C
16 9 million Russian Civil War 20C
17 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C
7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C
19 7 million Fall of Rome 5C
7 million Chinese Civil Wars 20C

The number after the event is what century.

source

~~~Darth Caedus

 

Posted Oct 6, '12 at 4:45pm

danielo

danielo

1,748 posts

No one was happy in the age wher ginges lived. most were poor peasent who died at the age of 30, lived in mud, ate mud and dranke mud. no happines there.

the other few were nobility. the one who served ginges were maybe happy, and his own clansman were happy, because of morale. but the other nation nobility, for exmple turkministan, were dead. or throwen to the street as there lands were taken. no happines here too.

So who was happy? mongolia? most of them stayed poor farmers. The only happy peoples were the drunk, and happy for some momment, and ginges party, friends and family, and his loyal nobility.
Maybe the citizens of his favorite city lived a bit better, like in samarkand, but the poor peoples of baggdad didnt. they got slaughtered. same in some places in China.

spying, treason, desertion, theft, and adultery, and persistent bankruptcy in the case of merchants were all punishable by execution.
. better that USA laws.
Dont get me wrong, his system was quite good, Ginges laws were quite strict, but yet fair, as not based on religion or ethnicity, like most of the world at the time.

So, my summary - no one was 'happy' in medieval, exept the very rich and the nobility, which often were the same.


And back to the topic - Goddammet forget i ever entered into it...
I shouled have said alien invasion or something... no one care about evil aliens {Not that i say they all are!}...
 

Posted Oct 7, '12 at 2:06am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,856 posts

So, my summary - no one was 'happy' in medieval, exept the very rich and the nobility, which often were the same.


And you expect that to change? Let's review the times, shall we?

Ancient Rome: Broken into a hierarchy with slaves at the bottom and the Emperor at the top. The main parts are the Citizens, essentially low-middle class people. Then you have the wealthy, i.e. successful merchants and aristocrats, then you have the Senators.
On to the Middle Ages
Broken into farmers, merchants, the aristocratic body, and the King. Rich are happy, huge wealth gap.
The Victorian age: Main body of workers and craftsmen, then the merchants, then the aristocratic society. Certainly little happiness in those days.
Today: Main body of lower-middle class citizens, with businessmen and corporate bigwigs way above the citizens, and then you have the politicians, an even more corrupt version of aristocracy.

No matter what, the rich are always happier then the poor.
 

Posted Oct 7, '12 at 7:32am

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

All bolded things are wrong. They also weren't living in fear of Chingis Khan. In fact, they were mostly happy.


it's not wrong.
i guess it's part of your countrys propaganda that you think this is wrong.
people did fear khan and that is the only thing all those people united.
 

Posted Oct 7, '12 at 7:37am

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

The number after the event is what century.


those numbers have nothing to do whit gun controle. but whit war.

and we shouldn't look at history. morals / laws and corruption has changed alot since then. (atleast in most parts of the world. some might be behind on it because they don't want to change it. kinda like what religions are doing)
 

Posted Oct 7, '12 at 10:40pm

Jacen96

Jacen96

3,114 posts

Those numbers were a response to what you said about ghengis khan.

stuff hasn't really changed, it is still just as bad as it was back then.

~~~Darth Caedus

 

Posted Oct 9, '12 at 7:28am

danielo

danielo

1,748 posts

Yep. When we make ourselve stereotipes or even fear, it much easy to shoot someone. I dont want to offence, but look at the USAians posts. its like shooting a thiefe is a natural, blessed thing. You can do it. its ok.

I yet think its not ok, but who am i to say that? i live in another socity, diffrunte culture as it seems.

And here a question - is that a circle? thieves got more violante because land owner start shooting? who came first, the chicken or hte egg?

 

Posted Oct 9, '12 at 9:26am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,856 posts

its like shooting a thiefe is a natural, blessed thing. You can do it. its ok.

Ah ah ah, it's shooting a robber, not a thief. A thief wouldn't have been this stupid.

Also, the thieves came first, why the heck would a landowner just kill some random person, instigating the invention of the thief?
 

Posted Oct 9, '12 at 1:29pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,305 posts

Knight

Ah ah ah, it's shooting a robber, not a thief. A thief wouldn't have been this stupid.

Why do you even make that distinction... both are people who break into your house. The only difference to me seems that one gets caught and the other not. Makes sense - not.

They're still people. If they threaten your life, you may shoot - but I agree with danielo in that it is gratuitous to kill someone for a theft. I sure understand you want your stolen good back before they get away, but is it worth killing someone? Also, why should this be tolerated but on the other side a robber can sue you if they get hurt in your house? Doesn't make sense.

Also, the thieves came first, why the heck would a landowner just kill some random person, instigating the invention of the thief?

He didn't ask whether the thief itself came first or not; he was talking about their violence. People breaking into your house only wear guns because the residents started shooting at them.
 
Reply to gun controle gone wrong again.

You must be logged in to post a reply!