Post #157,480
5/28/04 4:23:51 PM
|
That's one way of looking at it.
The other is to realise that the US murder rate is at least 10x that of the UK.
Handguns are illegal here. Go figure. How much is your freedom worth?
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #157,487
5/28/04 5:06:37 PM
|
Put a price tag on it and it's as good as sold...
way too cheaply, as a rule...
|
Post #157,501
5/28/04 7:41:17 PM
|
Chances of getting filled in here are much lower than there
so to prevent murders you allow yourselves to be assaulted, go figure.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,502
5/28/04 8:08:58 PM
|
'filled in'?
You lost me on that one.
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
|
Post #157,531
5/29/04 10:07:27 AM
|
euphemism for getting the crap kicked out of you
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,527
5/29/04 8:09:56 AM
|
And how many males have
'assault weapons' in Switzerland, for example? They just slaughter eachother, no?
I maintain it's a moral flaw in our current national character that is 'responsible' for our murder rate - not the possession of the guns themselves.
Our kids are taught that someone else is always at fault - and that heroes getting shot only suffer little red marks that don't even slow them down.
GAH.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #157,614
5/29/04 6:26:27 PM
|
Well, if your characters are so flawed...
...then maybe you SHOULDN'T compare yourselves to the stoic, rational, non-murderous Swiss when it comes to these things, should you?
Just because they can keep their AK in the closet doesn't mean you guys wouldn't murder each other a lot less if you didn't wallow in the equipment to do it.
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #157,630
5/29/04 8:21:15 PM
|
Did I? As if we stood on a par? No.
I object to people treating guns as a 'cause' of thier own misuse. It's illogical. It's wrong. It's immoral (a shirking of responsibility).
It's stupid.
By the arguments gun control advocates use, cars should be completely illegal.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #157,671
5/30/04 4:05:17 AM
|
Re: Did I? As if we stood on a par? No.
I object to people treating guns as a 'cause' of thier own misuse. It's illogical. It's wrong. It's immoral (a shirking of responsibility).
It's stupid.
By the arguments gun control advocates use, cars should be completely illegal.
That'd be true if guns had any other use than killing people. They're not even good paperweights. Road safety is a massive issue, but your SUV isn't designed for killing people (cue Ashton's UAV rant here...:-))
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #157,687
5/30/04 11:03:35 AM
|
They do
well, some guns do. Handguns, assault rifles, smgs, etc are only good for killing people. However, long guns do have other uses... like killing varmints. Not an inconsequential use either, if you live in rural Canada and farm.
We've had a hell of a time doing gun control legislation that can effectively deal with the contexts of rural and (esp big-city) urban Canada. One reason why it's so difficult is because of the federal nature of our system. However, there are some fundamental disconnects between the two communities. In fact, on a legal level, there are some fundamental disconnects between the two: cities belong to the province, not to the federal government. This makes creating that kind of legislation difficult.
Incidentally, the main jurisdictional issues involved are that gun control decision making should be municipally based, but neither municipalities nor provinces can make crimes: only the federal government can. However, the federal government doesn't do summary and/or civil stuff very much (outside the setting of standards). Since carrying a loaded rifle in downtown Flin Flon might need different treatment than one in downtown Toronto (in Flin Flon, you might be taking out the family of prairie dogs that moved into your backyard this spring, while in Toronto if you're just cruising around with a loaded rifle you're probably looking for the bank, or worse yet the bell tower), it's difficult because no one particular government has all the tools available to it.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #157,691
5/30/04 11:27:12 AM
|
Wrong guns are designed only to kill humans
that they are effective varmit control and food gathering tools is a good side effect. The cultural difference is when I want a gun to kill someone, it is annoying to have to track down a cop or rob a gun store then go after the person needing killing while the person needing killing is beating feet as fast as possible. Your culture either does not approve of any killing or only allowing people far from the circumstances to decide. I would rather live in a society where if I decide who needs killing and those same dispassionate civilians decide after the fact if I was right or not.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,693
5/30/04 11:33:27 AM
|
The answer is "does not approve of any killing"
the only capital crime we have is treason in time of war. This is in place for use on the battlefield.
After all, you never know when you might need to be able to shoot for desertion etc. It gives the commanders in the field the room that they absolutely have to have to maintain discipline without worrying about charges.
This assumes that some other soldier doesn't disagree with the commander. This makes using this very rare, but means it can be there when absolutely necessary.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #157,745
5/30/04 5:44:42 PM
|
Did I? Is that a cogent counter to my argument? No.
Imric tries: I object to people treating guns as a 'cause' of their own misuse. It's illogical. It's wrong. It's immoral (a shirking of responsibility). Did I say guns are "a 'cause' of thier own misuse"? No. Do they have to be "a 'cause' of their own misuse" in order for the banning of them to be a valid logical solution to the problem of gun killings? No. It is enough for guns to be a *means* of killing; a *means* of "their own misuse". Did I ever say I saw guns as anything other than a *means* of killing? No. The problem is, you Yanks, due to your flawed characters -- according to your own earlier post -- go around killing each other with guns all the time. Sure, *one* theoretically valid solution would be to remove the "root cause", and fix those flawed characters of yours. But that's probably practically impossible. Fortunately, that is not the *only* valid solution: Remove the means of something, and the something won't occur as frequently any more, is another at least as sound approach. You don't have to see guns as "the root cause" of anything in order to be able to argue that removing them from the equation would solve the problem. (BTW, by the argument *you* used, fire fighters should stop trying to deprive fires of oxygen; only removing the burning material -- the fuel -- itself would be a valid strategy. [Or trying to undo the fact of ignition, or whatever you see as "the root cause" of a fire -- anyway, as opposed to removing the oxygen, which is just a means for the fire to go on burning...] *That* is illogical and wrong, and probably stupid enough as to be downright immoral.)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #157,758
5/30/04 7:04:14 PM
|
No it's not enough.
Removing legal guns does not mean I won't be shot, won't be killed by other means.
It does mean that I, personally, won't be able to do anything about it if the situation comes up, though.
It would mean that I would have to depend on Mother-Father-Brother government to protect me.
There are many places, if not MOST places here, that are out of reach of the cradling arms of the police.
Guns are illegal in cities like NY - how many are shot there as opposed to in the country where everybody has a gun (or two, or three)?
I've chased a burglar out of my home - miles away from the police (a department with only a few cops and a few hundred hundred of sq. m to patrol) - with a shotgun, before - didn't shoot the guy, either.
"Remove the means of something, and the something won't occur as frequently any more, is another at least as sound approach."
As sound? Remove self-defense, and killings will stop? HERE? I don't buy it.
And what's whith the straw man, Christian? "According to your own post... ...killing eachother all the time"? Youreally can argue logically when you want - why resort to things like that?
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #157,826
5/31/04 3:30:50 AM
|
You're misunderstanding me completely. (And intentionally?)
ImriSkip misses (at least) half the equation: Removing legal guns does not mean I won't be shot, won't be killed by other means. Who said anything about removing *only legal* guns?!? Not me, for sure. Of fucking *course* "removing the guns" will only work if it removes *all* the guns. It does mean that I, personally, won't be able to do anything about it if the situation comes up, though.
It would mean that I would have to depend on Mother-Father-Brother government to protect me. Yeah, yeah; Evil Big Brother, blah blah blah... Are you *sure* you shouldn't go off into the hills and found your own little mini-state-within-a-state...? (Remember to call it something with "Free" and "Militia" in it, and to always, *always*, ALWAYS refer to your place as a "compound". HTH! :-) "Remove the means of something, and the something won't occur as frequently any more, is another at least as sound approach."
As sound? Remove self-defense, and killings will stop? HERE? I don't buy it. It's at least as *logically* valid a *theoretical* approach as removing the root cause, which you apparently insist on being the *only* valid approach. Look, I think you're misunderstanding my part in this debate: I am NOT saying removing all the guns is a *practically* feasible solution, or that it's absolutely and definitely the one you guys should (try to) follow. I'm pretty much a disinterested bystander(*) in this debate, and only dipped in to correct a few logical errors; an Ashtonian endeavour of protecting the language from corruption; or trying to referee the meta-level of the conversation that you guys are carrying out the base level of, if you will. To wit: My whole point was that your post about "removing the guns" being "illogical" and necessarily "emotional" was bogus; *logically*, it's prefectly valid. And what's whith the straw man, Christian? "According to your own post... ...killing eachother all the time"? Youreally can argue logically when you want - why resort to things like that? Huh?!? You're parsing it all wrong! That was, "due to your flawed characters -- according to your own post"; pointing out that the "flawed characters" EXPLANATION OF THE REASON (for *why* you Yanks go around killing each other with guns all the time) was yours. I WAS NOT claiming that my formulation of the whole problem -- that "you Yanks go around killing each other with guns all the time" -- was yours. That's a given, anyway; obvious to anyone. And I wouldn't have thought it's controversial, either: What is it you are protesting as a "strawman" -- are you claiming that you Yanks *don't* go around killing each other with guns all the time(+)? Or are you saying that it isn't a problem?
(*): I'm pretty much convinced, and getting ever more so, that not only are you Yanks basically weirdoes, but you're also incorrigible ones and won't ever come to your senses. Not that you aren't prefectly nice people, most of you, on a one-to-one level, and I wouldn't blink an eye at having *one or a few of you* as neighbours, provided the neighbourhood itself was somewhere sane... But, *as a nation*, you are at least psychotic, and possibly downright psychopathic. So, since you guys aren't ever going to either give up your guns, or become civilised enough to stop killing each other with them all the time, WTF would be the use for me to *actually* participate in any such discussion? Naah... So what I am trying to protect from abuse here is just a meta-level entity; the language that, at least so far, is still the common English one. (Once your Yank weirdification of it has gone far enough that it's oficially a separate thing from the Queen's English, you can do whatever you want to it, for all I care. But not until then.) (+): Oh, for fuck's sake, read that little flight of hyperbole as (black-)humourously as it was intended! *Compared to anybody else*, "it sure seems as if you guys have a hard time squeezing in both an eight-hour workday AND a social life, between all the shootouts!", like... :-)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #157,829
5/31/04 3:33:48 AM
|
+ OK...
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #157,761
5/30/04 7:28:09 PM
|
the big disconnect between us
That you personally cannot forsee ever having to need one. I or the otherhand am dang sure that there will be a reason to have one.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,762
5/30/04 7:31:55 PM
|
He has post Nazi PC disease
He's touchy-feely with no good reason other than to live with the fact that his ancestors were monsters.
-drl
|
Post #157,832
5/31/04 3:47:31 AM
|
Oh, POAD, you frigging moron.
The only mistake the Nazis made was going for the Jews -- they should obviously have eliminated all the gimp Yank physicist wannabes instead!
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #157,831
5/31/04 3:44:47 AM
|
You are totally wrong there, Box. (What else is new? :-)
|
Post #157,845
5/31/04 10:38:54 AM
|
after reading you reply to Imric on why you joined in
I understand your position a little better. You agree there isnt a logical solution to this issue.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,847
5/31/04 11:01:37 AM
|
Sure there is
Either you trust your citizenry or not. We don't. The people are enemies of the state by assumption, and must be reined in. That is why everything is so FUBAR.
-drl
|
Post #157,675
5/30/04 4:13:58 AM
|
Re: And how many males have
All these "issues" - gun control, tree hugging, evil drunk bashing, etc. - are substitute religions. Each involves a sacrifice/offering - the gun, paper, a beer. There is no God, but there is a committee of do-gooders. This represents the first adumbrations of the change of religious guard that accompanies a new age (Animism -> Isis -> Mars -> Jesus -> MADD).
An anagram of "do-gooder" is "God-rodeo".
-drl
|
Post #157,677
5/30/04 5:29:10 AM
|
Top-notch!
.. don't forget the Real icon of the age: VISA
Were Siva one of them handy personal-Gods what whisper to folks, audition their interminable Sivamas shopping lists .. get them raises n'stuff (and kill off their enemies du jour)
-- I'm sure She'd appreciate the anagram.
|
Post #157,722
5/30/04 2:08:01 PM
|
Wow, an anagram! I guess that proves it then. ;)
|
Post #157,728
5/30/04 2:58:38 PM
|
There is no doubt
..that the conception of God is changing, and that such changes have occured with remarkable synchrony to the "astrological ages", and that the guiding principle has been exactly that of the corresponding age.
Aquarius is the sign of "I love humanity but to hell with my neighbors". We can expect committee-based "humanistic" (in the direct sense, human'ish' but not really human) religion. That is why I am so insistent that we recognize the humanity of Jesus and the other canonical prophets - otherwise we will as a civilization install a made-up "humanishness" to put in the place of the missing humanity - and the result will be a spiritually dead world run by do-gooder committees and strict injunction against being "different". Uranus is a terribly unstable energy.
This of course will lead us to the next age, Capricorn - a return with a vengeance to a paranoid cult of personality.
-drl
|
