Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Fucking spoon...

Rakis wrote:Fucking spoon...

There is no spoon.

Lundse wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Blaming guns for murder is like blaming spoons for obesity.

And blaming the prevalence of guns in the average household for accidental killings, teen suicides and home robbers with itchy trigger fingers is like blaming the high amount of car ownership for traffic accidents...

...or the decrease in the number of pirates for global warming?

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Baraka Bryan wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Blaming guns for murder is like blaming spoons for obesity.

Heard it a million times, can't dissagree but it's getting a bit old.

It's a good analogy, I had to say it at least once in this topic.

That's true, iI suppose it does need to be in every thread on the subject.

I would say blaming guns for murder is more like blaming fatty food (rather than spoons) for obesity though - to make a more accurate comparision. Unhealthy food don't force people to become obese, but they sure do help them become overweight more easily.

We all just need to watch Thank You For Smoking more. Great film about the difference between living in spin and freedom of choice.

MUTE

lol not moot

glad at least baraka liked it

GamePlayer wrote:We all just need to watch Thank You For Smoking more. Great film about the difference between living in spin and freedom of choice.

I loved that movie!

Do you get where I'm coming from on this though? I'm neither for nor against people owning guns, I just want people to stop thinking in absolutes and think about whether they'd be happy in a society where everyone was allowed to carry rocket launchers or fully automatic rifles around. Obviously that's a rediculous scenario, but I think it can help pro-gun people understand at least some of where the anti-gun people are coming from. Most people do agree with limiting the armedness (I know... I made that word up) of citizens, they just dissagree to what extent - That's all I'm trying to say.

Now BB can come try to shove me off this fence. (or maybe "yank" rather than shove, I think I know which side he wants me to land on!)

I've been wanting to watch that, heard it's good.

um....regardles of truth of the story or not... Why is an 11 year old at home alone??? I know we have to do what we do, but Im not an advocate of kids alone at home, especially at that age.

Criminals are Criminals, color, origin, ethnic background is immaterial.

Guns are metal innatimate objects that are unable to do anything but sit there unless weilded by a hand.
Guns are low tech, slugg throwers, I dont find particularly interesting, technology or otherwise.
Guns weilded, they end in the hands of trained, untrained, official, unoffical, private, public, urban, rural, law obiding, and criminal hands.
Guns are very effective at what the do, non fatal or fatal.

I go to the grocery store for food.
I know how to fish and hunt if needed.

By constitution (how ever you interpret it) americans have the right to bear arms, period.
I believe in the constitution.

I believe you have the right to protect and defend yourself.

I made it 41 years, left coast, right coast, middle of the country, overseas, rural and urban without ever owning one.
I also spent 10 years in the Marine Corps, and was a 7 time expert with rifle and 5 times expert with pistol.

Overall I think the issue is a push. I believe in the rule of law, so I go with the opinion of the majority, that fits that mold.

Many things need to be addressed leading up to this altercation, or similar ones.

Community helping community watching out for criminals in the neighborhood. More active police protection and patrols (armed or not, can be applied country specific). Children being supervised by adults, not left alone. Parents not having to leave their children alone because of economic issues. People, as a whole, learning self defence (some martial arts)(which is also healthty and confidence building) on top of systems of observation, self protection (other than or in addition to guns), that would detuer and keep they're exposure to these situations limited.

Sound switzerland?? invade my house, threaten my family or Assault me on the street and see what happens:)
I do my thing day to day, with my family and the friends we have and keep to the rule of law, interupt my happiness, and I will DEFEND myself within those laws:)

I generally am paranoric, stand offish, take a while to get comfortable and know someone, and when someone who is outside my circles of frequenting, comes within 50 yards, the hairs on my neck go up and enter that mode. I remain reserved and civil, but have a buffer that will not be crossed, where I will move to a more agressive posture and prepare for altercation. I dont live for it or look for it, I just keep my eyes open at all times and vigoursly mention to those I know they should do the same.

I dont know if I radiate it or not, but you would be surprised how stance, gesture, and flat out look can detuer things. I am mortal, and have a particuallry good ability to bleed, so I understand I am not anything other than that. I do think that I can remain out of most if not all of those situations by not gettting into them in the first place.

There are just nefarious, evil oozing, fuckheads out there that cant cope with the rule of law, living in a happy society, working hard, and makeing a way for themselves, and want to take short cuts. This fucknut element, be it individual, group, local, state, national, international, organized or not is there and we have no choice in the matter of they're existance. Hopefully thru the rule of law, the employment of and enforcement, and unifying together in the public arena we can keep these incidents to the minimum, which I think is the case overall.

TRANG

Harumph!

(Well said, Trang)

trang wrote:um....regardles of truth of the story or not... Why is an 11 year old at home alone??? I know we have to do what we do, but Im not an advocate of kids alone at home, especially at that age.

Criminals are Criminals, color, origin, ethnic background is immaterial.

Guns are metal innatimate objects that are unable to do anything but sit there unless weilded by a hand.
Guns are low tech, slugg throwers, I dont find particularly interesting, technology or otherwise.
Guns weilded, they end in the hands of trained, untrained, official, unoffical, private, public, urban, rural, law obiding, and criminal hands.
Guns are very effective at what the do, non fatal or fatal.

I go to the grocery store for food.
I know how to fish and hunt if needed.

By constitution (how ever you interpret it) americans have the right to bear arms, period.
I believe in the constitution.

I believe you have the right to protect and defend yourself.

I made it 41 years, left coast, right coast, middle of the country, overseas, rural and urban without ever owning one.
I also spent 10 years in the Marine Corps, and was a 7 time expert with rifle and 5 times expert with pistol.

Overall I think the issue is a push. I believe in the rule of law, so I go with the opinion of the majority, that fits that mold.

Many things need to be addressed leading up to this altercation, or similar ones.

Community helping community watching out for criminals in the neighborhood. More active police protection and patrols (armed or not, can be applied country specific). Children being supervised by adults, not left alone. Parents not having to leave their children alone because of economic issues. People, as a whole, learning self defence (some martial arts)(which is also healthty and confidence building) on top of systems of observation, self protection (other than or in addition to guns), that would detuer and keep they're exposure to these situations limited.

Sound switzerland?? invade my house, threaten my family or Assault me on the street and see what happens:)
I do my thing day to day, with my family and the friends we have and keep to the rule of law, interupt my happiness, and I will DEFEND myself within those laws:)

I generally am paranoric, stand offish, take a while to get comfortable and know someone, and when someone who is outside my circles of frequenting, comes within 50 yards, the hairs on my neck go up and enter that mode. I remain reserved and civil, but have a buffer that will not be crossed, where I will move to a more agressive posture and prepare for altercation. I dont live for it or look for it, I just keep my eyes open at all times and vigoursly mention to those I know they should do the same.

I dont know if I radiate it or not, but you would be surprised how stance, gesture, and flat out look can detuer things. I am mortal, and have a particuallry good ability to bleed, so I understand I am not anything other than that. I do think that I can remain out of most if not all of those situations by not gettting into them in the first place.

There are just nefarious, evil oozing, fuckheads out there that cant cope with the rule of law, living in a happy society, working hard, and makeing a way for themselves, and want to take short cuts. This fucknut element, be it individual, group, local, state, national, international, organized or not is there and we have no choice in the matter of they're existance. Hopefully thru the rule of law, the employment of and enforcement, and unifying together in the public arena we can keep these incidents to the minimum, which I think is the case overall.

TRANG

Good post, you're on a roll today!

What do you really think about the line that I underlined though? Define arms - because depending on how you define arms this part of the constitution may already be deeply violated. Or - maybe, since the dangers today are different than they were at the time that law was written, we need to either increase or decrease the potency of the arms that people are allowed to bear. Just a topic to think about, I'm not advocating either way, I'm just saying that the (any) constitution cannot be a perfect document and will need to be revised (and has been many times).

America is a very very violent place I will give you that. Arms can definded any number of ways, in the historical sense "arms" ment musket and machete, today it means AR-17, katana, and c-4, hell I dont know. I know they're are people (militant groups, self proclaimed militias, religious zealots, meteor worshiping end of the world nuts,etc) abuse it, but I have to default to rule of law.

I think the founding fathers(a lot of them were lawyers or law trained) stated it just that way to make it flexible, and not hard coded, and I believe they were very very smart men. I believe as I stated, however it is interpeted, under the rule of law, is how I will go. I believe it has a very liberal interpretation these days, and maybe needs some modern focus, but we the people as a majority havent decided to, or figured out how to do that yet.

There are way smarter people than me, and way bigger elements (guns 'r" us types, guns are flower planters types, etc) than me that dedicate way more time than I ever will to the topic. I have one vote in the system and when that situation arises will cast it based on the datum at hand.

I dont own guns, never have, but if situation arises where I think I might need too, and its legal, I will.

does that help any?

(yea on soapbox for some reason today, washing my dam cloths, maybe the reason, dont know)
(most days I just want a good drink, some good loving, and good fun, pretty simple)

Trang

Just a thought...

Doesn't the protect yourself thing usually degenerate into some sort of arms race? To illustrate: if everyone learned (as someone suggested) a martial art in order to protect from attackers/intruders etc then it is likely that some of those who have learned such things will also become attackers. Then people are required to step up there capacity for violence to (for argument's sake) say a blade. But then attackers will start using blades as well. And on and on...

I once read of something similar happening with police-gang wars. The police start patroling while armed; the gangs start using rifles instead of pistols; police start using rifles and body armour... and it continues to escalate.

The problem is, as has already been noted, one of people.

trang wrote:America is a very very violent place I will give you that. Arms can definded any number of ways, in the historical sense "arms" ment musket and machete, today it means AR-17, katana, and c-4, hell I dont know. I know they're are people (militant groups, self proclaimed militias, religious zealots, meteor worshiping end of the world nuts,etc) abuse it, but I have to default to rule of law.

I think the founding fathers(a lot of them were lawyers or law trained) stated it just that way to make it flexible, and not hard coded, and I believe they were very very smart men. I believe as I stated, however it is interpeted, under the rule of law, is how I will go. I believe it has a very liberal interpretation these days, and maybe needs some modern focus, but we the people as a majority havent decided to, or figured out how to do that yet.

There are way smarter people than me, and way bigger elements (guns 'r" us types, guns are flower planters types, etc) than me that dedicate way more time than I ever will to the topic. I have one vote in the system and when that situation arises will cast it based on the datum at hand.

I dont own guns, never have, but if situation arises where I think I might need too, and its legal, I will.

does that help any?

(yea on soapbox for some reason today, washing my dam cloths, maybe the reason, dont know)
(most days I just want a good drink, some good loving, and good fun, pretty simple)

Trang

That's perfectly clear, sounds like you think pretty much how I think. I just get scared when I hear people talking about the constitution like it was the direct word of some deity, I certainly don't lump people into this pigeonhole but it's not uncommon for more nationalist people to sound almost exactly like brainwashed cult members when discussing their own country, and I just want to poke at people and make sure they're thinking rationally (which obviously you are!).

I think that anyone who thinks that their country is the best (as opposed to one of the best say, or "the best for me") doesn't know enough about other countries.

SadisticCynic wrote:Just a thought...

Doesn't the protect yourself thing usually degenerate into some sort of arms race? To illustrate: if everyone learned (as someone suggested) a martial art in order to protect from attackers/intruders etc then it is likely that some of those who have learned such things will also become attackers. Then people are required to step up there capacity for violence to (for argument's sake) say a blade. But then attackers will start using blades as well. And on and on...

I once read of something similar happening with police-gang wars. The police start patroling while armed; the gangs start using rifles instead of pistols; police start using rifles and body armour... and it continues to escalate.

The problem is, as has already been noted, one of people.

That's roughly my opinion - I don't think arming yourself really increases your safety very much (if at all, and in many cases I think it places you in greater danger), but I do understand that other people dissagree with me and I don't want to be the one telling them how to defend themselves.

But anti-gun legislation only takes guns away from law abiding citizens, not criminals.

The 2nd Amendment is there for two reasons; the formation of militias and overthrowing the government.

Before you argue that citizens could never stand up to the US military, it is illegal to use the Regular Army on US soil.

US servicemen are not required to follow unlawfull orders, either.

Gods below, not this old shit again.

How many gun threads can one man read in a lifetime and still remain sane? The first time I read a gun thread and saw Americans make the connection between liberty and the right to bear arms, I was genuinely surprised. The concept of gun ownership being a symbol of freedom just sounded like the sort of claptrap the gun lobby would come out with, but the idea seems quite common among Americans. Are there any other nations who think this way? The whole concept is alien to a European. Where does the link between guns and freedom come from?

Freakzilla wrote:1. But anti-gun legislation only takes guns away from law abiding citizens, not criminals.

2. The 2nd Amendment is there for two reasons; the formation of militias and overthrowing the government.

Before you argue that citizens could never stand up to the US military, it is illegal to use the Regular Army on US soil.

US servicemen are not required to follow unlawfull orders, either.

I know, I've heard all that before. To play the devils advocate though (remember before you flame though, I actually don't give much of a shit either way, this is just for the sake of debate):

1. As (hand)guns become more and more difficult to obtain (because they aren't everywhere in the first place) and the punishments for armed offences become stiffer and stiffer, fewer and fewer criminals will own them, up until only the most hardcore of the hardcore will have guns (as opposed to now, where any chump tough guy has one), and those are the guys who probably would have murdered you anyways, gun or no gun. And the same people who already own fully automatic rifles and explosives, which the rest of the public cannot legally own, so would we be safer with those weapons too?

Also, I'd still love to see some (reliable)stats on people actually defending themselves vs just making the situation worse or having no effect at all. I'm not saying they don't work for self defense or as a deterrant, I simply don't believe they work enough to justify the dangers of everyone having easy access to handguns.

2. I have no opinion on this at all other than that in this case rifles would be much more effective than handguns so removing the sale of handguns shouldn't really have any effect on this at all.

Just for argument's sake.


How would you feel in a society where anyone was allowed to own and carry any weapon? If you'd be okay with that then that's fine, I understand where you're coming from then, but I don't think most people would - even most so-called pro gun rights people.

chanilover wrote:Gods below, not this old shit again.

How many gun threads can one man read in a lifetime and still remain sane? The first time I read a gun thread and saw Americans make the connection between liberty and the right to bear arms, I was genuinely surprised. The concept of gun ownership being a symbol of freedom just sounded like the sort of claptrap the gun lobby would come out with, but the idea seems quite common among Americans. Are there any other nations who think this way? The whole concept is alien to a European. Where does the link between guns and freedom come from?

Probably from shooting them at the Brittish to get get it?

Freakzilla wrote:

chanilover wrote:Gods below, not this old shit again.

How many gun threads can one man read in a lifetime and still remain sane? The first time I read a gun thread and saw Americans make the connection between liberty and the right to bear arms, I was genuinely surprised. The concept of gun ownership being a symbol of freedom just sounded like the sort of claptrap the gun lobby would come out with, but the idea seems quite common among Americans. Are there any other nations who think this way? The whole concept is alien to a European. Where does the link between guns and freedom come from?

Probably from shooting them at the Brittish to get get it?

You'd have got the freedoms you wanted in the end anyway. Just like the Canadians and Australians.

chanilover wrote:Gods below, not this old shit again.

How many gun threads can one man read in a lifetime and still remain sane? The first time I read a gun thread and saw Americans make the connection between liberty and the right to bear arms, I was genuinely surprised. The concept of gun ownership being a symbol of freedom just sounded like the sort of claptrap the gun lobby would come out with, but the idea seems quite common among Americans. Are there any other nations who think this way? The whole concept is alien to a European. Where does the link between guns and freedom come from?

I don't know, but a lot of Canadians feel that way too , not just the US (to a much lesser degree than most Americans I'd guess though). Maybe it's a North America thing.



I'd get tired of arguing about it because I really just don't think it's that big of a deal either way, but the logic that some people put into it is just so wacky I have no choice but to poke at it and try and get people to at least comprehend that they're not inherantly right for some reason. (If everyone was arguing anti-gun with wacky logic I'd debate with them too)

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

chanilover wrote:Gods below, not this old shit again.

How many gun threads can one man read in a lifetime and still remain sane? The first time I read a gun thread and saw Americans make the connection between liberty and the right to bear arms, I was genuinely surprised. The concept of gun ownership being a symbol of freedom just sounded like the sort of claptrap the gun lobby would come out with, but the idea seems quite common among Americans. Are there any other nations who think this way? The whole concept is alien to a European. Where does the link between guns and freedom come from?

I don't know, but a lot of Canadians feel that way too , not just the US (to a much lesser degree than most Americans I'd guess though). Maybe it's a North America thing.



I'd get tired of arguing about it because I really just don't think it's that big of a deal either way, but the logic that some people put into it is just so wacky I have no choice but to poke at it and try and get people to at least comprehend that they're not inherantly right for some reason. (If everyone was arguing anti-gun with wacky logic I'd debate with them too)

Oh, I've heard all the arguments for and against tighter gun control, which I think is what the argument is about, rather than some kind of outright ban on guns which would be unworkable, including the constitutional issues (I think the US constitution was great for its time but is piss poor by modern standards), I just think the idea of guns=freedom is bizarre because it's such a non-European way of looking at things,

Oh well, it takes all sorts to make the world go around, I suppose. Including non-existent 11 year old gun-totin girls from Montana firing at non-existent illegal immigrants.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:1. But anti-gun legislation only takes guns away from law abiding citizens, not criminals.

2. The 2nd Amendment is there for two reasons; the formation of militias and overthrowing the government.

Before you argue that citizens could never stand up to the US military, it is illegal to use the Regular Army on US soil.

US servicemen are not required to follow unlawfull orders, either.

I know, I've heard all that before. To play the devils advocate though (remember before you flame though, I actually don't give much of a shit either way, this is just for the sake of debate):

1. As (hand)guns become more and more difficult to obtain (because they aren't everywhere in the first place) and the punishments for armed offences become stiffer and stiffer, fewer and fewer criminals will own them, up until only the most hardcore of the hardcore will have guns (as opposed to now, where any chump tough guy has one), and those are the guys who probably would have murdered you anyways, gun or no gun. And the same people who already own fully automatic rifles and explosives, which the rest of the public cannot legally own, so would we be safer with those weapons too?

I think there's a flaw in your argument. You assume that stiffer punishment = less handguns. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Stiffer punishment only means more crime college... I mean prison... inmates we have to pay for.

Also, I'd still love to see some (reliable)stats on people actually defending themselves vs just making the situation worse or having no effect at all. I'm not saying they don't work for self defense or as a deterrant, I simply don't believe they work enough to justify the dangers of everyone having easy access to handguns.

Could there even be an acurate figure for that without knowing the future? I mean, how do you know pulling out a handgun made things worse unless you do it?

It is better to have a gun an not need it than to need a gun and not have one.

2. I have no opinion on this at all other than that in this case rifles would be much more effective than handguns so removing the sale of handguns shouldn't really have any effect on this at all.

I wasn't even issued a handgun (sidearm) in the Army. I was told, if they get close enough that a handgun would be effective, you fucked up already. But then, part of my job was to direct artillery fire.

The jobs that typically get sidearms are tank crewmembers because it's hard to move around in a tank, much less with a rifle, MPs and Special forces.

BTW, I never mentioned handguns in my previous post.

None of this means I would give up the right to own one.

Just for argument's sake.


How would you feel in a society where anyone was allowed to own and carry any weapon? If you'd be okay with that then that's fine, I understand where you're coming from then, but I don't think most people would - even most so-called pro gun rights people.

If I could trust that all people had received training and were not mentally ill, I wouldn't mind. But I don't live in La-la-land. Regardless of training, mental heath can snap in an instant.

I believe in moderation.

For example, when I quit getting drunk all the time several years back, I never lied to myself and said I would never drink again. I told myself I would learn to drink responsibly and I think I've been pretty successful. Sure, I screw up now and then, but I'm much better off than before. I never asked anyone not to drink around me nor did I ask for prohibition. I learned self control.

We can't expect every person to be responsible enough to handle assault rifles or handguns but why should those few ruin it for the vast majority?

However, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is what it says, gun bans of any kind only limit our ability to do those things.

chanilover wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

chanilover wrote:Gods below, not this old shit again.

How many gun threads can one man read in a lifetime and still remain sane? The first time I read a gun thread and saw Americans make the connection between liberty and the right to bear arms, I was genuinely surprised. The concept of gun ownership being a symbol of freedom just sounded like the sort of claptrap the gun lobby would come out with, but the idea seems quite common among Americans. Are there any other nations who think this way? The whole concept is alien to a European. Where does the link between guns and freedom come from?

Probably from shooting them at the Brittish to get get it?

You'd have got the freedoms you wanted in the end anyway. Just like the Canadians and Australians.

How could we have known that? By the soldiers they sent?

I see gun registration as a list for the goverment to use when they decide to come take your guns away.

Freakzilla wrote:I see gun registration as a list for the goverment to use when they decide to come take your guns away.

No its just for tracking and trying to make sure when guns are stolen they can be tracked more easily, so many gun deaths happen from stolen guns.. I am a member of the party that started the thing so clearly I think its a good idea.

But, I think every man and woman have the right to protect their family. Now a days if the bad guys have guns you need one too.

I wish we could just destroy every gun and go back to a time when your skill with a sword was all you had to protect you and your family.

SM!