guns and their cost in lives and

[glauistean]

to society as a whole.

I know this is a very touchy subject. I have dealt with the effects of guns accidentally discharged either killing or injuring (wounding) others.

I am not advocating anything other than the professional view that I believe that countries such as the US do not have laws strict enough to curb the violence inflicted by these weapons.

That one can own a mini arsenal is ludicrous. Why does anyone need 12 guns or 20 guns? Why does anyone need assault rifles? Why on earth can a person own a .50 caliber rifle capable of causing massive damage to any structure be it a vehicle (read airplane) or individuals.

After the Virginia Tech shooting some lawmakers in the US were advocating having students carry weapons on campus.

That has got to be the most idiotic proposal I have heard in many years.

Just the mere fact that these kids have guns is sad , but that they are able to carry them at school at the tender age of 18+.

Professionally, people of that age are capable of rash decision making along with being under very high levels of stress.

Currently, the US is behind Brazil where gun violence is concerned. What is the reason. I have my own and would like an input.

I understand this is a very touchy subject so let's try to keep it civil. (me too)

Finally this is from the WHO,A recent study. I have a more recent one too that states that the US is last amongst the first world countries where violence and gun crime is a major concern. It is also as mentioned earlier behind a developing country. (World Health Organization, 2006 (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/bjprcpsych;191/3/253#REF31)) has pointed to the possibility of preventing disease by controlling environmental factors; it has been estimated that more than 20% of total suicides in North America and Europe can be attributed to environmental factors, one of which is access to firearms.

[schmenke]

Second Amendment.

'Nuff said.

Thread closed.







:rolleyes:

[Easy Drifter]

A very touchy subject. An avid hunter will often have several rifles for different game plus a shotgun or two.
Today there are also quite a few black powder enthusiasts and they tend to be large caliber.
I do agree there really is no need for assault type weapons in the general publics' hands.
Strangely enough in a few US States where the carrying of handguns, even concealed, has relatively recently been allowed, gun crime has decreased.
Canada has very strict handgun laws and yet we have a big problem in the major cities with the gangbangers. Most of them have trouble hitting what they are shooting at but the innocent get hit. It is possible to rent a handgun for the gang members and even rent the ammo. If you fire the gun then you pay for the ammo as well as the rental fee.
Accuracy with a handgun is difficult and yes I have handled them.
I grew up around guns, was shooting from about 9 and have a very healthy respect for guns. As far as I am concerned any gun I handle is loaded until I personally check it.
My family on my dad's side were all crack shots as was my mother. Her brother was about the most dangerous person with a gun I ever saw and he had been a Mountie!
I sure do not have an answer except stiff sentences for gun crimes. It will not stop the shooting but at least the ones in the slammer aren't shooting.

[Roamy]

glauistean Are you afraid to come over based on the fact you may get shot??

So were the Japanese
So will be any future attackers
Guns equal the playing field

One of the biggest problems we have is "Gun Laws" created by total idiots. Look at the major cities and states with strict gun laws. Only the criminals have guns - because the are CRIMINALS. Look at Mexico is gun control working??

If you remove violent criminals from society permanently then you begin to solve the problem.

[schmenke]

... The number of civilians killed by guns is minute compared to the number killed in traffic accidents. A reasonable conclusion would be that we should ban cars immediately as that would have a far greater impact in reducing death and injury than banning guns. ...

The flip side...

Ownership of a personal vehicle requires registration to acknolwedge responsibility for a device that has the potential to cause harm to others.

Why is it difficult to accept similar control for firearms? :mark:

[Mark in Oshawa]

The flip side...

Ownership of a personal vehicle requires registration to acknolwedge responsibility for a device that has the potential to cause harm to others.

Why is it difficult to accept similar control for firearms? :mark:

Schmenke, that is all well and good...registration in my mind would matter if people had plates hanging off the guns so people could see the plate when someone pulled a gun and report the number. The fact is though, guns don't have license plates. Registaring a gun just says you own it. It doesn't stop you from misusing it, it doesn't stop you from using it in commisission of a crime, and there is no point to registaring it other than to announce to the cop coming to your door that you own a gun. Guess what, the cops approach your door often as if you are armed anyhow, regardless.

I would be for the registration of weapons if I thought it would actually do something constructive. The problem is, it hasn't. I am all for background checks, I am all for responsible gun owners storing and locking their guns safely. The reality of it all is though that the gun registry here in Canada really didn't do a damn thing....

In the US, they have very liberal laws on gun ownership, and the most violent and trigger happy of cities also happen to be the cities where the politicians have brought in all sorts of gun control measures. Washington led the US in murders for a lot of years and it was illegal to own a gun in the District. Didn't bother the gangbangers now did it?

It isn't for you or I or anyone else to decide if someone has too many guns if they are responsible with them. It is their money...their business. Why everyone wants to dictate everyone else's hobby or personal possessions is beyond me....

The second someone misuses a gun, toss the book at them, but many people own and use guns for various legitimate purposes and never need the government to tell them how to do it.

[glauistean]

Your post is an interesting one. Just as a comparison, I did a quick search and found these statistics from 2007. They are for deaths in the US.

First in number of deaths by cause was heart disease at 616,067. Number 5 was "unintentional" (accidents) deaths at 123,706. Number 11 was suicide (all causes) at 34,598. Homicide (all causes) was number 15 at 18,361. The others in between 1 and 15, in order, were malignant neuroplasms, cerebro vascular, chronic respiratory, alzheimer's, diabetes, influenza & pneumonia, nephritis and septicemia.
It is disingenuous to address illness and biological causes of death to further the argument about guns.

Let's keep the thread based upon guns and not use analogies like cars or refrigerators or the like when their intention is not for the purpose of causing harm. Guns are made to inflict harm. People choose (majority) them for sporting events.

Now the figures posted are like camouflage. They do not address the central issue of guns. Be it for sport or for protection. Criminals will always get guns.

Where suicide is concerned it is seven times more likely that a person will use a gun if present. That is a huge statistic.

Another poster mentioned the army and kicking out military personnel under 20. That is a ridiculous argument.

The military is where you would be least likely to have gun violence yet there are more prominent. Training,the proper use of and respect to the dangers is instilled.

Roamy used the argument that Mexico a third world country was comparable to the US.

Why did he not mention that guns can be bought out of the back of cars without a check. So who is buying them ,Roamy? Could be a terrorist for all you know or gang members. Huge flaws.

SChmenke makes a point that is absolutely correct and during the Bush era I always was amused with the wire tapping issue.

If you register guns they are more easily traced. Today, certain gun companies manufacture fingerprint proof stocks and hand pieces. Why?

The right wing and many on the left stated they had nothing to fear from wire tapping since they did nothing wrong. So why fear registering guns?

Starter, whomever it was that wrote the article on disease and it's influence on death was not a doctor as two of the causes of death from his/her quote are non -existent. Neoplasm would be the correct term and it includes any and all cells that have grown well beyond their normal state. Not all are malignant.




It is estimated that one fourth of violent crimes—murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery

committed (a total of 1,430,693) were committed with a firearm. For each firearm-related death, two nonfatal firearm-related injuries were treated in hospital emergency departments.Homicide, suicide, and unintentional death in the United States exceed those of 25 other high-income nations.


I would love to know where your source got his/her figures since the US alone has over 90k+ gun incidents alone per year with over 35,000 of them fatal. These are homicides. 85 people per day are murdered using guns.

[Tazio]

It is disingenuous to address illness and biological causes of death to further the argument about guns.

Let's keep the thread based upon guns and not use analogies like cars or refrigerators or the like when their intention is not for the purpose of causing harm. Guns are made to inflict harm. People choose (majority) them for sporting events.

Now the figures posted are like camouflage. They do not address the central issue of guns. Be it for sport or for protection. Criminals will always get guns.

Where suicide is concerned it is seven times more likely that a person will use a gun if present. That is a huge statistic.

Another poster mentioned the army and kicking out military personnel under 20. That is a ridiculous argument.

The military is where you would be least likely to have gun violence yet there are more prominent. Training,the proper use of and respect to the dangers is instilled.

Roamy used the argument that Mexico a third world country was comparable to the US.

Why did he not mention that guns can be bought out of the back of cars without a check? So who is buying them ,Roamy? Could be a terrorist for all you know or gang members. Huge flaws.

SChmenke makes a point that is absolutely correct and during the Bush era I always was amused with the wire tapping issue.

If you register guns they are more easily traced. Today, certain gun companies manufacture fingerprint proof stocks and hand pieces. Why?

The right wing and many on the left stated they had nothing to fear from wire tapping since they did nothing wrong. So why fear registering guns?

Starter, whomever it was that wrote the article on disease and it's influence on death was not a doctor as two of the causes of death from his/her quote are non -existent. Neoplasm would be the correct term and it includes any and all cells that have grown well beyond their normal state. Not all are malignant.




It is estimated that one fourth of violent crimes—murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery

committed (a total of 1,430,693) were committed with a firearm. For each firearm-related death, two nonfatal firearm-related injuries were treated in hospital emergency departments.Homicide, suicide, and unintentional death in the United States exceed those of 25 other high-income nations.
I would love to know where your source got his/her figures since the US alone has over 90k+ gun incidents alone per year with over 35,000 of them fatal. These are homicides. 85 people per day are murdered using guns.Where do you live and what makes you an authority on the Home of the Brave?
BTW If you are from the UK I would be careful who you refer to as being inbred as I noticed you did it to one member who I don't generally agree with but if he works out 1/2 as hard and lifts 1/2 half as much weight as he says he does (which I have no reason to doubt) he would do a tap dance on your head and probably hit you about 47 times in the face before you hit the ground. I'm pretty sure he is a Brit, however I suspect you already know that because I have a feeling he has let you know in a PM. You definately need to get out more. You are only 12 years younger than me yet you appear to be very naive. I suppose you thought you could come on this forum and belittle a bunch of hayseeds but you are a paper tiger. I've been a registered voter and Democrat since 1972. I have some experience in the southwestern part of the US as I have lived here most of my life.
The Bill of Rights and The Constitution of the United States of America. has granted us certain inalienable rights. Now of course in a Democratic Republic these laws can and have been amended, but they can only be taken away by god. Since a great number of the founding fathers of The U.S. were atheist's why do you think they included that wording? I'll tell you. Because if there is no god than we are none the worse! Contrary to my screen name I have never been to jail and I certainly haven't been to prison. I have done a lot of work in South Central L.A. and other unsavory areas. Then again I learned at a very early age that if you handle your business in these locations in-between 7am and 2 pm all the bad guys are sawing logs. At the age of 17 I had a guy hold a loaded 9 mm to my head in anger and to prove he was not messing around he ejected a live round just to make sure I knew he was not playing. Was I scared? A little although I don't think I was as scarred as the guy holding the gun. Poor me I was participating in illicit unlawful activities but had enough sense to realize that my life was worth more than 120 bucks. Now back to guns and gun laws I've owned one gun in my life I used to take it target shooting and that was fun. I sold it the same way I bought it with an ad in the paper, Something you don't do now but this was over 20 years ago.
If you want to get the gangbangers and the people who's lives they affect really pisssed off make it so they have to get their guns from Eastern Block Nations or South America. Then the price of Cocaine and Weed will go up as well as the relative value of every thing involved in trafficking these substances. Crime may well increase as a result who knows? You certainly don't, and your statistics don't amount to jack squat anyway. Myself I don't like guns because I get plenty of decibels watching auto races and Rock Concerts When I'm out in the wilderness I don't care for sudden loud noises and if the rest of the environment could speak English they might agree. That is why I enjoy communing with nature by fishing and hiking I'm very good at the former. If I decided I wanted to hunt the most powerful weapon I would use would be a cross-bow to maintain the serenity of the moment.You think you can start a thread and then lay down the ground rules for the proper discourse to evaluate it and discard other analogies because you don't think they are applicable. I submit that you are just one more voice and if you are not a citizen of the USA you have even less juice in the affairs of my government. The Constitution grants the citizens the right to bear arms. Even if originally it was meant as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. The law is still valid. Personally I think it is a bigger hypocrisy for people are allowed to procreate and teach their offspring all kinds of unhealthy habits like getting fat on hamburgers and other meat products. I believe it would be beneficial if you had to earn a license to eat meat. Say you have to dress out a Buck, or a Steer. Personally I would not have any problem with it because I am quite handy with a filleting knife.

[glauistean]

[quote="Mr Alcatraz"]Where do you live and what makes you an authority on the Home of the Brave?
BTW If you are from the UK I would be careful who you refer to as being inbred as I noticed you did it to one member who I don't generally agree with but if he works out 1/2 as hard and lifts 1/2 half as much weight as he says he does (which I have no reason to doubt) he would do a tap dance on your head and probably hit you about 47 times in the face before you hit the ground. I'm pretty sure he is a Brit, however I suspect you already know that because I have a feeling he has let you know in a PM. You definately need to get out more. You are only 12 years younger than me yet you appear to be very naive. I suppose you thought you could come on this forum and belittle a bunch of hayseeds but you are a paper tiger. I've been a registered voter and Democrat since 1972. I have some experience in the southwestern part of the US as I have lived here most of my life.
The Bill of Rights and The Constitution of the United States of America. has granted us certain inalienable rights. Now of course in a Democratic Republic these laws can and have been amended, but they can only be taken away by god. Since a great number of the founding fathers of The U.S. were atheist's why do you think they included that wording? I'll tell you. Because if there is no god than we are none the worse! Contrary to my screen name I have never been to jail and I certainly haven't been to prison. I have done a lot of work in South Central L.A. and other unsavory areas. Then again I learned at a very early age that if you handle your business in these locations in-between 7am and 2 pm all the bad guys are sawing logs. At the age of 17 I had a guy hold a loaded 9 mm to my head in anger and to prove he was not messing around he ejected a live round just to make sure I knew he was not playing. Was I scared? A little although I don't think I was as scarred as the guy holding the gun. Poor me I was participating in illicit unlawful activities but had enough sense to realize that my life was worth more than 120 bucks. Now back to guns and gun laws I've owned one gun in my life I used to take it target shooting and that was fun. I sold it the same way I bought it with an ad in the paper, Something you don't do now but this was over 20 years ago.
If you want to get the gangbangers and the people who's lives they affect really pisssed off make it so they have to get their guns from Eastern Block Nations or South America. Then the price of Cocaine and Weed will go up as well as the relative value of every thing involved in trafficking these substances. Crime may well increase as a result who knows? You certainly don't, and your statistics don't amount to jack squat anyway. Myself I don't like guns because I get plenty of decibels watching auto races and Rock Concerts When I'm out in the wilderness I don't care for sudden loud noises and if the rest of the environment could speak English they might agree. That is why I enjoy communing with nature by fishing and hiking I'm very good at the former. If I decided I wanted to hunt the most powerful weapon I would use would be a cross-bow to maintain the serenity of the moment.You think you can start a thread and then lay down the ground rules for the proper discourse to evaluate it and discard other analogies because you don't think they are applicable. I submit that you are just one more voice and if you are not a citizen of the USA you have even less juice in the affairs of my government. The Constitution grants the citizens the right to bear arms. Even if originally it was meant as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. The law is still valid. Personally I think it is a bigger hypocrisy for people are allowed to procreate and teach their offspring all kinds of unhealthy habits like getting fat on hamburgers and other meat products. I believe it would be beneficial if you had to earn a license to eat meat. Say you have to dress out a Buck, or a Steer. Personally I would not have any problem with it because I am quite handy with a filleting knife.

Alcatraz, you have threatened me in your last sentence. It is now incumbent upon me to make sure that threats such as this are recorded.

Your dissertation is senseless and without any type of cohesive argument. You're rambling. You are all over the place and if I were you , a person that argues for guns but is scared of them and would prefer the "serenity" of a bow and arrow I would have you taken to the nearest psych ward as your meandering is an embarrassment to the "home of the brave".

[glauistean]

No it isn't. I was using those statistics to put the gun deaths in the US in perspective to total causes of death. Perspective - something always to keep in mind when discussing volatile subjects.

Is your argument then only about the (evil) guns? Or are we talking about the manifold ways people unintentionally die? And how to best reduce said deaths.

You betcha! And that's why I prefer to be armed so as to deal with them on more or less equal footing.

And when going to the store 5 miles away, 19 out of twenty people will use a car. It's a matter of convenience. Were guns not available they would use other means. And have throughout history. I don't see the problem. If someone chooses to off themselves, why is it my business? It's their life.

That was me. Reread your statement and you'll see my comment was right on, given the context you proposed.

I believe you may have mis-stated here. I'm fairly right and I have a big problem with any government intrusion on private citizens - guns, phones or anything else. Who said anything about a problem with registering guns? I don't have one. Though most Europeans might, if they go back and read history about the Nazi invasions of some of their countries.

I can't dispute you here. As I said, it was a quick Google search and I can't (read: won't take the time to) verify it.

Of course. If I wanted to harm someone I'd use the easiest way possible too. Duh! That's a false argument. You are substituting the method (a gun) with the assailant (a person). A gun is an inanimate object. It's the person using it which is at fault.


And I'd love to know where your figures come from. Link please. I also need to ask, in you first sentence just above, are those figures adjusted for population?

And why are you including "unintentional death"? That includes things like falls and traffic accidents. Doesn't help your anti-gun premise at all.

You use the word perspective and death by guns and cars as though they are connatural. They are not.

When you are debating an issue Starter, it is wise to adhere to the topic and not try to divert it to where you feel more comfortable.

Disease and guns are not the same. Guns cause death by projectile by a man made object.

Disease is caused by a plethora of different organisms be it biological, viral, DNA structural anomalies, genetic imperfections and on and on.

You can't have a logical debate about an object that has one purpose when you bring up another that has absolutely no baring on the topic. That death occurs in each has no bearing from one to the other.

It would be akin to a doctor taking out a patients appendix when they have cancer and another treating a patient for cancer when they need an appendectomy. They are totally different situations and incongruous.

As for the old tired adage of inanimate objects I would expect better from this forum. If there is any rational brain cell in the heads of those that use these tired old NRA slogans then why are they buying guns for SELF DEFENSE?

The sources I use are from the CDC USA, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and studies by Kellerman, Zimring and Lott. Lott you may well know wrote a study advocating for the gun lobby that was so full of statistical falsehoods he has become a pariah in the medical field.

[Bob Riebe]

The flip side...

Ownership of a personal vehicle requires registration to acknolwedge responsibility for a device that has the potential to cause harm to others.

Why is it difficult to accept similar control for firearms? :mark:
A firearm is not a vehicle nor is it in any manner even remotely related to a vehicle in function, or use.

A constitutional amendment does not give anyone the right to have or use a vehicle, but it does give one the right to have and use firearms.

That asinine vehicle-firearm analogy has been floated by libs when ever possible and it is sad that it is only seldom that anyone states why such a analogy is asinine.

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="glauistean"]
I am not advocating anything other than the professional view Professional what, liars or fools?[/b=

That one can own a mini arsenal is ludicrous. Why does anyone need 12 guns or 20 guns? Why does anyone need assault rifles?[b] Assault rifles, or weapons are all kept track of with the required tax form to purchase one, required by the BATF.
A simple semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle, even if it has a black polymer stock. To say one is, is simply a lie or gross ignorance.

After the Virginia Tech shooting some lawmakers in the US were advocating having students carry weapons on campus.
That has got to be the most idiotic proposal I have heard in many years. Why?
Defend your rhetoric.

Currently, the US is behind Brazil where gun violence is concerned. What is the reason. I have my own and would like an input. What is it?

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="glauistean"]

If you register guns they are more easily traced. Today, certain gun companies manufacture fingerprint proof stocks and hand pieces. Why? Who does?
List them?

The right wing and many on the left stated they had nothing to fear from wire tapping since they did nothing wrong. So why fear registering guns? What government confiscated telephones?
Governments like to know who has what, so they know which doors to know down. The citizens of New Orleans no how that works real well.

I would love to know where your source got his/her figures since the US alone has over 90k+ gun incidents alone per year with over 35,000 of them fatal. These are homicides. 85 people per day are murdered using guns. The largest numbers are goblins killing goblins, let them die.

[Easy Drifter]

Everyone cool down. Firstly this is a UK based forum.
US gun possesion laws are enshrined in their Constitution unlike most if not all other countries. Wether we agree or disagree is none of our business. That is their constitution!
The gun laws vary greatly from country to country. Canada's in theory are pretty tough. Actually enforcement is a complete joke.
Gangbangers are picked up time and time again while carrying and promptly released on bail yet again with a 'no gun' order. The cops have literally picked them up the day they were released carrying yet again only to get immediate bail yet again. Do you think the cops are a little pi--ed off?
Guns themselves actually exceedingly rarely kill. They have to be loaded and the trigger pulled. Humankind has found ways to eliminate each other from the beginning. A knife is very efficient at close quarters if the person knows how to handle it. So is a club or tire iron.
Actually I feel this thread should be closed as we have been here before and things just get nasty with no resolution. :(

[janvanvurpa]

The number of civilians killed by guns is minute compared to the number killed in traffic accidents.

CDC figures for 2007--presumably the same you selectively ignored:

Motor Vehicle Accidents: 42,031
Firearms........................31,224

Minute comparatively.. 75% but minute..

right.

[Tazio]

Alcatraz, you have threatened me in your last sentence. It is now incumbent upon me to make sure that threats such as this are recorded.

Your dissertation is senseless and without any type of cohesive argument. You're rambling. You are all over the place Which part of my ramblings is not accurate? Just because I prefer quiet when out in the countryside doesn't mean I should feel the necessity to change the law for others.
There are designated areas where shooting is allowed and where it is not!
BTW I'm not afraid of guns, I'm not sure where you got that impression!

[ShiftingGears]

This thread is already going downhill!

[Eki]

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

[Eki]

After the Virginia Tech shooting some lawmakers in the US were advocating having students carry weapons on campus.
That has got to be the most idiotic proposal I have heard in many years. Why?
Defend your rhetoric.

I think it's obvious. If there had been a stabbing on campus, do you think it would a good idea to give every student a knife of their own instead of putting metal detectors and guards at the gates in order to prevent more stabbings? Or if there were a suicide bomber on a plane, would it wise to give every passenger their own bomb instead of improving airport security?

[markabilly]

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.
Just be glad that posts in this forum on the internent does not..... :eek:

[markabilly]

I sure do not have an answer except stiff sentences for gun crimes. It will not stop the shooting but at least the ones in the slammer aren't shooting.
bingo, Sorry Schmenke, now the thread can be closed. :D

[glauistean]

CDC figures for 2007--presumably the same you selectively ignored:

Motor Vehicle Accidents: 42,031
Firearms........................31,224

Minute comparatively.. 75% but minute..

right.

Coming to this forum has enlightened me to the obtuse nature of certain people. Janvanvurpa, what on earth or why would you compare firearm killings to motor vehicle killings? The fact that you have even deemed that they are analogous is saddening.

I should not have to explain to you why they are incomparable. You should know, and not be a victim of the NRA and it's dumb slogans that make people seem absolutely ignorant and irrational.

Motor vehicles are used to transport.

Guns are weapons designed to harm.

Have you ever seen a person shot in the stomach? I have. I have seen the effects on the patient,family and the reprecussions of the act of discharging a gun with the intent to kill. Perpatrator was sentenced to 25 years. Wasted life. If the gun was not there they would not have had a conflict that escalated. Oh, and just in case you believe it was an illegal weapon. It wasn't. Not gang members. In fact both were professionals.

I have also had the experience of a near fatal automobile accident on many occassions.

Cars crash. No intent. People going to specific destinations with a single purpose.

Now, explain again why you believe that there is an analogy other than the fact that MANY ACCIDENTS occur in cars.

[Tazio]

Coming to this forum has enlightened me to the obtuse nature of certain people. Janvanvurpa, what on earth or why would you compare firearm killings to motor vehicle killings? The fact that you have even deemed that they are analogous is saddening.

I should not have to explain to you why they are incomparable. You should know, and not be a victim of the NRA and it's dumb slogans that make people seem absolutely ignorant and irrational.

Hey Shylock, for someone of who claims to posses a high degree of intellect, I find it more than a little amusing, and plain stupid that you trash out a guy that is trying to substantiate your posture in this discussion. What a foolish reply, or is it simply a defense mechanism?
Maybe you would just prefer to argue with anyone whether they agree with you or not. :rolleyes: :laugh:

[Easy Drifter]

This is getting moronic.
Cars have been and are deliberately used to kill. Not what they are designed for but it happens.
Yes guns are designed to kill or wound. They are also used for target practice.
Even more so they are used to hunt for food to enable people to eat. That is very common where I live. I hunted for years and I and my family ate what we shot. That included my mother as a hunter.
In this area, less than 100 miles from Toronto, many people hunt and fish to put good food on the table. Otherwise they go to a food bank. That is degrading. I have come close.
We are a tourist area and in the winter many people who have jobs in the summer are out of work. Those jobs pay minimum wage or just above.
Wal Mart is infamous for part time workers so they do not have to pay benifits. They are only one of many. A neighbor was a dept. head but still classsified as part time.
If I was healthy enough I would still hunt. I am not. I even have days when I have to use a cane on level ground.
Up here farmers require guns to protect their farm animals. We have coyotes, timber wolfs and cougars although our MNR say we do not have the latter two. Their own field officers say we do but the official line is no. There are bears and maurauding fox plus very destructive to fowl, mink. Mink just kill.
Coyotes and worse Coydogs are very destructive.
Remember this starts within 40 miles of the GTA with a population of over 5 million.
It is quite common in my area for entire companies to close during deer or moose hunting seasons. A large moose can provide many high protein meals and tastes a lot better than Kraft Dinner.

[janvanvurpa]

Coming to this forum has enlightened me to the obtuse nature of certain people. Janvanvurpa, what on earth or why would you compare firearm killings to motor vehicle killings? The fact that you have even deemed that they are analogous is saddening.

I should not have to explain to you why they are incomparable. You should know, and not be a victim of the NRA and it's dumb slogans that make people seem absolutely ignorant and irrational.

Motor vehicles are used to transport.

Guns are weapons designed to harm.

Have you ever seen a person shot in the stomach? I have. I have seen the effects on the patient,family and the reprecussions of the act of discharging a gun with the intent to kill. Perpatrator was sentenced to 25 years. Wasted life. If the gun was not there they would not have had a conflict that escalated. Oh, and just in case you believe it was an illegal weapon. It wasn't. Not gang members. In fact both were professionals.

I have also had the experience of a near fatal automobile accident on many occassions.

Cars crash. No intent. People going to specific destinations with a single purpose.

Now, explain again why you believe that there is an analogy other than the fact that MANY ACCIDENTS occur in cars.

Having seen plenty of graphic "not for circulation" photos of the effects of combat casualties when I was a kid I have been anti-war, anti-imperialist and advocate non-violence my whole life---or at least for the last 45+ years.

The figures from CDC were there soley to ridicule the imbecilic choice of words by the person I quoted--- He said the numbers killed is "minute'.
I showed his "minute" amounted to 75%.... and thus his lame attempt at dismissing the damage done to be extremely foolish...
For the record I was very active in motorcycle racing for a couple of decades and played rally on gravel after that for till now.
I have lost friends killed in both forms or racing.

I look at the leading cause of death of white males 16-24 in motor vehicle crashes to be a scandal, as i do that now with tires 5 times better, car design 5-8 times better, brakes 10 times better, outwards visibiltuy hugely improved over the mid 1960s when we in the US killed every year about 55-57,000----what it took 10 years of insane folly to kill that many Americans in SE Asia---that we still manage to slaughter 42,000+ and maim 100s of thousands more on our hi-ways
Madness.

But obviously the sheer numbers who die in pointless, usually stupid violence in the country is a point of National disgrace...
The rationalisations, ludicrous.

Only an idiot would try to whitewash it otherwise...


So don't chide me Glausie, I'm far ahead of you on this one.

(Again the point is obvious firearms are PRIMARILY built to kill living things---they may be used for other ends though, that is inarguable.
Cars may have once been built for transport---but people use them for other ends ie this is a motorsports forum after all., that is one thing people use cars and motorcyles for.
Fixating on the ostensible original intent is not a rewarding course to argue)

[glauistean]

Hey Shylock, for someone of who claims to posses a high degree of intellect, I find it more than a little amusing, and plain stupid that you trash out a guy that is trying to substantiate your posture in this discussion. What a foolish reply, or is it simply a defense mechanism?
Maybe you would just prefer to argue with anyone whether they agree with you or not. :rolleyes: :laugh:

Your lack of self esteem is gradually wearing thin. I have never postured anything. I have posted to your dissatisfaction on topics that we disagree on.

You don't like my response then don't read it. Although, I do find it fascinating that a person such as you can write seven lines of tripe supposedly lambasting me whereas all you do is make yourself look a trifle foolish.

Mr Alcatraz or whomever you are, tell me , what does that series of words mean to you "substantiate your posture"? It's meaningless in the context you wrote it and in fact ,it appears very juvenile. Are you a juvenile,Alcatraz?

[glauistean]

Having seen plenty of graphic "not for circulation" photos of the effects of combat casualties when I was a kid I have been anti-war, anti-imperialist and advocate non-violence my whole life---or at least for the last 45+ years.

The figures from CDC were there soley to ridicule the imbecilic choice of words by the person I quoted--- He said the numbers killed is "minute'.
I showed his "minute" amounted to 75%.... and thus his lame attempt at dismissing the damage done to be extremely foolish...
For the record I was very active in motorcycle racing for a couple of decades and played rally on gravel after that for till now.
I have lost friends killed in both forms or racing.

I look at the leading cause of death of white males 16-24 in motor vehicle crashes to be a scandal, as i do that now with tires 5 times better, car design 5-8 times better, brakes 10 times better, outwards visibiltuy hugely improved over the mid 1960s when we in the US killed every year about 55-57,000----what it took 10 years of insane folly to kill that many Americans in SE Asia---that we still manage to slaughter 42,000+ and maim 100s of thousands more on our hi-ways
Madness.

But obviously the sheer numbers who die in pointless, usually stupid violence in the country is a point of National disgrace...
The rationalisations, ludicrous.

Only an idiot would try to whitewash it otherwise...


So don't chide me Glausie, I'm far ahead of you on this one.

(Again the point is obvious firearms are PRIMARILY built to kill living things---they may be used for other ends though, that is inarguable.
Cars may have once been built for transport---but people use them for other ends ie this is a motorsports forum after all., that is one thing people use cars and motorcyles for.
Fixating on the ostensible original intent is not a rewarding course to argue)

Reading your original post and then your response to mine is a little like reading the end of the book before the beginning.

You never stated why you were drawing a comparison to the figures. That you now use the word "chide "with reference to me is laughable. It is your inept manner in relaying your point that caused my response and then you decide that it is me that is in someway responsible for not understanding your four lines of text to have a deeper meaning. The discussion is about guns.

Don't act as others with your high and mighty indignant posturing to impress others.

By the way. Where are you ahead of me, exactly? Is there a race or does your diatribe pertaining to your experience with car and motorcycle accidents morph mine while dealing with those you attribute to your singular awareness of the devastation caused by motor accidents. When you have experienced a gushing femoral artery twenty minutes after an accident or trying to react in a staid and placid manner trying to apply reason as to whether a subdural hematoma is occurring and the damage if one is incorrect.
So as you say, don't chide me, unless you have had the experience of someone in your care die and then have to tell the loved ones the waiting as you walk those God awful steps to deliver the news that would change the lives of many because you were not able to save one. Walk in those shoes and tell me how far you are ahead of me.

[janvanvurpa]

Reading your original post and then your response to mine is a little like reading the end of the book before the beginning.

You never stated why you were drawing a comparison to the figures. That you now use the word "chide "with reference to me is laughable. It is your inept manner in relaying your point that caused my response and then you decide that it is me that is in someway responsible for not understanding your four lines of text to have a deeper meaning. The discussion is about guns.

Don't act as others with your high and mighty indignant posturing to impress others.

By the way. Where are you ahead of me, exactly? Is there a race or does your diatribe pertaining to your experience with car and motorcycle accidents morph mine while dealing with those you attribute to your singular awareness of the devastation caused by motor accidents. When you have experienced a gushing femoral artery twenty minutes after an accident or trying to react in a staid and placid manner trying to apply reason as to whether a subdural hematoma is occurring and the damage if one is incorrect.
So as you say, don't chide me, unless you have had the experience of someone in your care die and then have to tell the loved ones the waiting as you walk those God awful steps to deliver the news that would change the lives of many because you were not able to save one. Walk in those shoes and tell me how far you are ahead of me.

Hey Glaustein.
I have had to tell people that their best friend, my best friend, the man who introduced us before we were married had just died in a transit accident far far home and that was a shock..

And I've seen enough of my own blood gushing, and bone sticking out---I've been on the other side--in the hands of emergency medical personnel 15-20 times----and I know what its like on others


I don't feel compelled to explain every gawddam nuance of why I might write a response, particularly to the thick-head clots Right-wingers and Authoritarians here which most of the US members here are.

If you didn't notice the original reply was addressed to the anonymous "Starter" and if you didn't catch the open contempt for his referencing motor vehicle accidents in order to minimize gun violence, don't complain to me, Doc.

We don't compose treatises here, and I'll be honest, I don't have much interest in the childish concept of "debate"...the guy wrote something stupid, I made it clear how stupid it was.


Doc, I think you need to slow the fawk down with your attacking people until you can correctly draw correct conclusions on the intent of what somebody is referring or alluding to...particularly when they are agreeing with you...

Because here you have fawked up royally.

And Gawd help your patients and co-workers if you jump to conclusions and get as defensive so quickly as you have done on your one simple misunderstanding.

As to "ahead of you", I'm presuming I'm older than you, and presuming I was advocating non-violence before you.
And that included guns, AND cars as means of violent death.

Since you're a doctor---take a pill, relax a bit.
Think of all the ways the word Peace can be said...

[Tazio]

Your lack of self esteem is gradually wearing thin. I have never postured anything. I have posted to your dissatisfaction on topics that we disagree on.

You don't like my response then don't read it. Although, I do find it fascinating that a person such as you can write seven lines of tripe supposedly lambasting me whereas all you do is make yourself look a trifle foolish.

Mr Alcatraz or whomever you are, tell me , what does that series of words mean to you "substantiate your posture"? It's meaningless in the context you wrote it and in fact ,it appears very juvenile. Are you a juvenile,Alcatraz?I'm glad you asked :) . You are the one who's head it sailed over. But just to humor you I will reiterate. (Java) made a sarcastic reference to minute that he quoted from Starters post. You went right on blindly ( and ignorantly ) losing the implication. Then you proceed to attack his post as if he had agreed with the comment Starter made.
That was what I referred to as substantiating your posture. I suppose I could say that he was actually in more agreement than disagreement to your stated message but I used a phrase that was not all encompassing to your position. You still took it the wrong way, and I mentioned it. So you want to call me for using a less than absolutely lucid phrase. You need to lighten up Scro! You are grasping at straws.
As to how juvenile I act;
I have a Baseball players sense of humor something I acquired while competing at a very high level until I was 44 years old. I can find comedy in almost any situation It has nothing to do with my self esteem. I come on this forum to have fun period. The moderators know that. They also know I don't give a ratz a$$ if I get banned.
I hope that satiated your very thinly veiled attempt to try to make me look unaware.
BTW I have a BA in English Lit. Any attempt by you trying to take into question my command of the English language is absurd.
Now you may go back to your Manischewitz and Gefilte Fish. Shalom

BTW you do remind me of a character from "The Merchant of Venice"

[Roamy]

Coming to this forum has enlightened me to the obtuse nature of certain people. Janvanvurpa, what on earth or why would you compare firearm killings to motor vehicle killings? The fact that you have even deemed that they are analogous is saddening.

I should not have to explain to you why they are incomparable. You should know, and not be a victim of the NRA and it's dumb slogans that make people seem absolutely ignorant and irrational.

Motor vehicles are used to transport.

Guns are weapons designed to harm.

Have you ever seen a person shot in the stomach? I have. I have seen the effects on the patient,family and the reprecussions of the act of discharging a gun with the intent to kill. Perpatrator was sentenced to 25 years. Wasted life. If the gun was not there they would not have had a conflict that escalated. Oh, and just in case you believe it was an illegal weapon. It wasn't. Not gang members. In fact both were professionals.

I have also had the experience of a near fatal automobile accident on many occassions.

Cars crash. No intent. People going to specific destinations with a single purpose.

Now, explain again why you believe that there is an analogy other than the fact that MANY ACCIDENTS occur in cars.

reading this you probably should not be driving

[Roamy]

Hey Glaustein.
I have had to tell people that their best friend, my best friend, the man who introduced us before we were married had just died in a transit accident far far home and that was a shock..

And I've seen enough of my own blood gushing, and bone sticking out---I've been on the other side--in the hands of emergency medical personnel 15-20 times----and I know what its like on others


I don't feel compelled to explain every gawddam nuance of why I might write a response, particularly to the thick-head clots Right-wingers and Authoritarians here which most of the US members here are.

If you didn't notice the original reply was addressed to the anonymous "Starter" and if you didn't catch the open contempt for his referencing motor vehicle accidents in order to minimize gun violence, don't complain to me, Doc.

We don't compose treatises here, and I'll be honest, I don't have much interest in the childish concept of "debate"...the guy wrote something stupid, I made it clear how stupid it was.


Doc, I think you need to slow the fawk down with your attacking people until you can correctly draw correct conclusions on the intent of what somebody is referring or alluding to...particularly when they are agreeing with you...

Because here you have fawked up royally.

And Gawd help your patients and co-workers if you jump to conclusions and get as defensive so quickly as you have done on your one simple misunderstanding.

As to "ahead of you", I'm presuming I'm older than you, and presuming I was advocating non-violence before you.
And that included guns, AND cars as means of violent death.

Since you're a doctor---take a pill, relax a bit.
Think of all the ways the word Peace can be said...

sounds like you shouldn't be driving either. Or do you just ride right seat and fawk with the tablet :)

[markabilly]

Hey Glaustein.

And Gawd help your patients and co-workers if you jump to conclusions and get as defensive so quickly as you have done on your one simple misunderstanding.


Since you're a doctor---take a pill, relax a bit.
Think of all the ways the word Peace can be said...


Doctor?????? :rolleyes:

What a ton of total puppy stuff. :crazy:

This argumentative, insulting, and arrogant troll is not a medical doctor. :rotflmao:

No way. The troll aint even smart enough to figure out when someone is agreeing with him.....

probably some orderly carrying bedpans somewhere......with some internent access where he can read about arteries on Wikie....and dream on......I liked his other BS stories about what he claimed to be much better but this one is funnier for sure..... :rolleyes:

Besides there are laws about impersonating a doctor......careful you dont end up with the end "up" err... "doing" prostrate exams from the bottom side rather than the top side :eek:

[Rollo]

If your neighbourhood really is so dangerous that it's safest to be armed, there are deeper-rooted problems there — problems that owning firearms in the name of security probably won't fix.

If you've been on these boards long enough you'll know my opinion on the Second Amendment. Never once have I seen an example where it contributes to making society better, or safer.

[Koz]

Have you ever seen a person shot in the stomach? I have. I have seen the effects on the patient,family and the reprecussions of the act of discharging a gun with the intent to kill.
Perpatrator was sentenced to 25 years. Wasted life. If the gun was not there they would not have had a conflict that escalated. Oh, and just in case you believe it was an illegal weapon. It wasn't. Not gang members. In fact both were professionals.

If someone has an intent to kill they will do it with a baseball bat, a knife or a gun. Whatever they can get their hands on.
Most people are not bloody thirsty psychopaths... Some are, and they do bad things. That's life.

Also for the record, I don't think it's all that easy to get one's hands on an assault rifle in america... Something that looks like one sure...

[edv]

I always liked Chris Rock's solution:
Give everyone a gun...
Charge $5,000 per bullet.

[race aficionado]

I always liked Chris Rock's solution:
Give everyone a gun...
Charge $5,000 per bullet.

What!
So only the rich can kill?

They have too many luxuries as is . . . . .

Guns don't kill people,
people kill people.

Guns don't kill people,
Gaping holes in vital organs kill people.

etc. etc. etc.

:bandit:

[Eki]

What!
So only the rich can kill?

Yes, only criminals would have bullets.

[janneppi]

I read the post ralfheartedly as follows...

This is getting moronic.
I hunted for years and I and my family ate what we shot. That included my mother ...

Had to read it again with bit more attention. :)

[glauistean]

Hey Glaustein.
I have had to tell people that their best friend, my best friend, the man who introduced us before we were married had just died in a transit accident far far home and that was a shock..

And I've seen enough of my own blood gushing, and bone sticking out---I've been on the other side--in the hands of emergency medical personnel 15-20 times----and I know what its like on others


I don't feel compelled to explain every gawddam nuance of why I might write a response, particularly to the thick-head clots Right-wingers and Authoritarians here which most of the US members here are.

If you didn't notice the original reply was addressed to the anonymous "Starter" and if you didn't catch the open contempt for his referencing motor vehicle accidents in order to minimize gun violence, don't complain to me, Doc.

We don't compose treatises here, and I'll be honest, I don't have much interest in the childish concept of "debate"...the guy wrote something stupid, I made it clear how stupid it was.


Doc, I think you need to slow the fawk down with your attacking people until you can correctly draw correct conclusions on the intent of what somebody is referring or alluding to...particularly when they are agreeing with you...

Because here you have fawked up royally.

And Gawd help your patients and co-workers if you jump to conclusions and get as defensive so quickly as you have done on your one simple misunderstanding.

As to "ahead of you", I'm presuming I'm older than you, and presuming I was advocating non-violence before you.
And that included guns, AND cars as means of violent death.

Since you're a doctor---take a pill, relax a bit.
Think of all the ways the word Peace can be said...

If I erred I apologize. The onus is on you to post your response clearly so

that the person answering does not have to deduce to whom you are referring.

That you know who you are referring to is inconsequential. Make yourself a little clearer in future.

[glauistean]

I'm glad you asked :) . You are the one who's head it sailed over. But just to humor you I will reiterate. (Java) made a sarcastic reference to minute that he quoted from Starters post. You went right on blindly ( and ignorantly ) losing the implication. Then you proceed to attack his post as if he had agreed with the comment Starter made.
That was what I referred to as substantiating your posture. I suppose I could say that he was actually in more agreement than disagreement to your stated message but I used a phrase that was not all encompassing to your position. You still took it the wrong way, and I mentioned it. So you want to call me for using a less than absolutely lucid phrase. You need to lighten up Scro! You are grasping at straws.
As to how juvenile I act;
I have a Baseball players sense of humor something I acquired while competing at a very high level until I was 44 years old. I can find comedy in almost any situation It has nothing to do with my self esteem. I come on this forum to have fun period. The moderators know that. They also know I don't give a ratz a$$ if I get banned.
I hope that satiated your very thinly veiled attempt to try to make me look unaware.
BTW I have a BA in English Lit. Any attempt by you trying to take into question my command of the English language is absurd.
Now you may go back to your Manischewitz and Gefilte Fish. Shalom

BTW you do remind me of a character from "The Merchant of Venice"

Which character in Merchant of Venice? Oh, and by the way, if you received a degree in English literature you sure as hell did not do so well in the writing and verbalizing category. As I stated in my prior post "substantiating your posture" in the manner that you wrote it has absolutely no meaning. It is obtuse, ignorant, and if you have a degree as you state, an embarrassment to whomever it was that tried to lecture you.

You babble and say nothing. You use words that you do not know the meaning and then when you do find a word you use it out of context.

If you believe that I care for your rabid tirade and pompous arogance as you try to deflect your abhorrence for me into an insult and defence of another, then try again.

[Eki]

I read the post ralfheartedly as follows...

Had to read it again with bit more attention. :)
Same here. I hope it was a good shot and Easy's mother didn't suffer.

[donKey jote]

Wonder how they cooked her, or did they eat her raw.

[donKey jote]

[...]obtuse, ignorant, and if you have a degree as you state, an embarrassment [...]

You babble and say nothing. [...]

[...]rabid tirade and pompous arogance[...]

wade is that you? :wave:
:dozey:
:bandit:

[Tazio]

Which character in Merchant of Venice? Oh, and by the way, if you received a degree in English literature you sure as hell did not do so well in the writing and verbalizing category. As I stated in my prior post "substantiating your posture" in the manner that you wrote it has absolutely no meaning. It is obtuse, ignorant, and if you have a degree as you state, an embarrassment to whomever it was that tried to lecture you.

You babble and say nothing. You use words that you do not know the meaning and then when you do find a word you use it out of context.

If you believe that I care for your rabid tirade and pompous arogance as you try to deflect your abhorrence for me into an insult and defence of another, then try again.LOL You are very angry :s mokin:

[Easy Drifter]

I need to proof read better. :D
At least I added a smile to offset a very nasty bunch of posts by one member in particular.
For all his verbosity I am not sure if he has actually proposed anything vaguely workable.

[janvanvurpa]

If I erred I apologize. The onus is on you to post your response clearly so

that the person answering does not have to deduce to whom you are referring.

That you know who you are referring to is inconsequential. Make yourself a little clearer in future.

Go back and look.
I quoted just the one line, it was there in the little box that says "Quote Starter"
I can do no better.
If I said what I though of his brilliance (that is high sarcasm and satire)
there would be a screen of xxxxx and xxxxx xxxxx..

As I said, I only post highlights of the most egregious lies and bungles.
They---those ditto-heads---are not serious, it is folly to waste time attempting to even suggest any point of view other than their Talk radio or at best "History Channel"---for the intellectuals among them--- received versions of knowledge. In other words, if I wanted to debate with people having a 5th or at most 6th Grade level of understanding of US History and culture, I would argue with 5th or 6th Graders.

[airshifter]

If I erred I apologize. The onus is on you to post your response clearly so

that the person answering does not have to deduce to whom you are referring.

That you know who you are referring to is inconsequential. Make yourself a little clearer in future.

As far as I can tell only one person didn't understand what was posted. If he types really slow next time, double spaces, and uses smaller words will that help some?

:laugh:

[glauistean]

As far as I can tell only one person didn't understand what was posted. If he types really slow next time, double spaces, and uses smaller words will that help some?

:laugh:

I don't know. What do you think? :) Are you familiar with the premise that there is occasion when the most astute miss the obvious?

Never mind. You are one of those that likes to pander and post nonsense to get plaudits while unable to contribute anything of substance nor understand it when it is staring you in the face. Hence your inane post.

[Bob Riebe]

glauistean really says:
I don't know anything. What do you think? :) Are you familiar with the premise that there is occasion when the most astute miss the obvious, which has nothing to do with me?

Never mind. I am one of those that likes to pander and post nonsense to get plaudits while unable to contribute anything of substance nor understand it when it is staring me in the face. Hence my inane post.

[Rollo]

The nearly 30,000 deaths per year in the United States due to firearms through both homocide and suicide is obviously an "acceptable loss", if there are people willing to defend gun ownership so virulently.

[markabilly]

wade is that you? :wave:
:dozey:
:bandit:

No it is just your less than average ameriKan med pill passing psuedo doc taking his own meds....as he is much too smart to be taking meds prescribed by a real doctor


I don't know. What do you think? :) Are you familiar with the premise that there is occasion when the most astute miss the obvious?

Never mind. You are one of those that likes to pander and post nonsense to get plaudits while unable to contribute anything of substance nor understand it when it is staring you in the face. Hence your inane post.

Now it all makes sense.......



as my grandpa used to say back in his old double wide in the hills.......

One can teach the ignorant, but it ain't easy (sorry no reference to ED in this case), and requires patience

One can humble the arrogant, so they may learn the errors of their ways, but it ain't easy (no refrence to ED),

but .....






as to dealing with someone who possesses both much arrogance and ignorance, this sweet lady is the real doctor holding the only cure:








http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1269/5187506635_dbd39012d0.jpg

She say, " now Guey, please say ahhhhh, and stick your tongue out...now you stick your big head up..a little higher....that is it....hold it right therre.......FORE!!!

See, boys and girls, to answer gluestein, I aint the most astute, but I never miss the obvious...."

[anthonyvop]

The flip side...

Ownership of a personal vehicle requires registration to acknolwedge responsibility for a device that has the potential to cause harm to others.

Why is it difficult to accept similar control for firearms? :mark:

In the US that is not the case.

Anyone can own a car and drive it.

To drive it on public roads requires a license and registration but to use it on private property is totally unregulated.

[anthonyvop]

The nearly 30,000 deaths per year in the United States due to firearms through both homocide and suicide is obviously an "acceptable loss", if there are people willing to defend gun ownership so virulently.

30,000? Gun Control advocates love to throw numbers around to prove their case. Not sure where you got that number but lets run with it.

Out of those 30K how many were suicides? Deduct those numbers because if a person wants to kill themselves they will do it no matter if a gun is available or not.

Now how many were justifiable? Deduct those.

How many involved the violation of gun control laws?

Now subtract the number you reached from the approx 1 MILLION to 2.73 MILLION(Depends on who's survey you believe) times US citizens use guns to protect themselves each year.

The sum you get is well into the positive range for Gun use.

Numbers are great but only if you really look at them.

[glauistean]

glauistean really says:
I don't know anything. What do you think? :) Are you familiar with the premise that there is occasion when the most astute miss the obvious, which has nothing to do with me?

Never mind. I am one of those that likes to pander and post nonsense to get plaudits while unable to contribute anything of substance nor understand it when it is staring me in the face. Hence my inane post.

You know there is a Melungeon evident in so many groups. It seems there is a plethora in this.

[glauistean]

No it is just your less than average ameriKan med pill passing psuedo doc taking his own meds....as he is much too smart to be taking meds prescribed by a real doctor



Now it all makes sense.......



as my grandpa used to say back in his old double wide in the hills.......

One can teach the ignorant, but it ain't easy (sorry no reference to ED in this case), and requires patience

One can humble the arrogant, so they may learn the errors of their ways, but it ain't easy (no refrence to ED),

but .....






as to dealing with someone who possesses both much arrogance and ignorance, this sweet lady is the real doctor holding the only cure:







She say, " now Guey, please say ahhhhh, and stick your tongue out...now you stick your big head up..a little higher....that is it....hold it right therre.......FORE!!!

See, boys and girls, to answer gluestein, I aint the most astute, but I never miss the obvious...."

You as the other poster whose name I do not recall due to his/her insignificance are another example of those that try to interact but when confronted with what they perceive as superior intellect are reduced to banal and ridiculous rants such as the one you have just posted.

You, by the way are referring to an American but using a juvenile attempt at sarcasm and insult by using the nonsensical Amerikan to insult a nation of people of which I am not even related to. You are as they say in the aforementioned country a jackass. You try to use the English language to parlay unsuccessfully as always ,and reek of the passion to be heard because of your inability to be seen. You use words such as "pseudo" that you can't even spell let alone understand.

I have quite a bit of empathy, if not sympathy for your grandpa, but, I am wont to say that if he is as ignorant as you, then he is not in any position to dispense (play on words, medical :) ) any sort of advise except the ignorance that you deem as astute but sadly is lacking in intellect as is all of the posts you write. So, you have now disclosed, that you , and the offspring of this grandpa of yours are as base as you. Congratulations. You probably believe I am complimenting you.

[glauistean]

30,000? Gun Control advocates love to throw numbers around to prove their case. Not sure where you got that number but lets run with it.

Out of those 30K how many were suicides? Deduct those numbers because if a person wants to kill themselves they will do it no matter if a gun is available or not.

Now how many were justifiable? Deduct those.

How many involved the violation of gun control laws?

Now subtract the number you reached from the approx 1 MILLION to 2.73 MILLION(Depends on who's survey you believe) times US citizens use guns to protect themselves each year.

The sum you get is well into the positive range for Gun use.

Numbers are great but only if you really look at them.

You are the one using inaccurate statistics and speaking about an issue you have no business or knowledge to speak of.

Rollo in fact is quite right when he states his number at 30,000 but errs on the low side.
The figures are available at your FBI site unless they are the anti-gun group you mention.

The figures are also available at the CDC site, New England Journal of Medicine.

Suicide is not as simple as you put it. It depends on infinite numbers of

criteria to determine whether a person is suicidal or is an attention seeker.

If they are suicidal then they are not always going to act on it as suicide is over 90% spontaneous or impulsive in nature.

Guns in a home lead to suicide seven times more so than those without. What does that say to you, Anthony?

As for your number of defensive uses of a weapon, well to say the least , you are really grasping at straws. I understand you are a pro gun advocate irrespective of what anyone say , but when you use a statistic that has a differential of close to 2 million then that study or conclusion is of no merit. There just can't be that type of figure bandied about as it fails the standards and parameters of your basic study groups.

[Koz]

Suicide is not as simple as you put it. It depends on infinite numbers of

criteria to determine whether a person is suicidal or is an attention seeker.

If they are suicidal then they are not always going to act on it as suicide is over 90% spontaneous or impulsive in nature.

Guns in a home lead to suicide seven times more so than those without. What does that say to you, Anthony?

People who whine about suicide are not the same people who commit it.

People who would pull the trigger do not seek attention, because they know the decision is final.

People who cut themselves and/or self injure are in a different category. People who want attention do not kill themselves...

[Eki]

Most especially I do not want the tyrannies of either the Left or the Right to control my life.
And how do you think you having guns would prevent that? If they and their guns outnumbered you, they'd eventually shoot you dead unless you surrendered your guns. OK, I get it: They wouldn't control your life, just your death.

[race aficionado]

There is a price to be paid for true liberty. Those unwilling to pay that price will never have it.

True, but not with guns, bullets or war.

"Without sharing there can be no justice,
Without justice there can be no peace,
Without peace there can be no future."

[Easy Drifter]

As I pointed out earlier Canada has fairly strict gun laws and having a permit to even own a handgun is hard to get. A carry permit is even tougher. Assault type weapons are illegal.
However the criminal element still get handguns and the gangbangers in particular are notoriously both careless and poor shots. They hit everything and one but who they are shooting at, quite often.
So basically banning does not work.
All guns are supposed to be registered meaning rifles and shotguns. Anyone who lives in the country knows that is a joke.
Again many people in Canada still hunt for food, especially in the far north, but as pointed out even in southern/central Ont.
What the US does is their business and not that of busybodies in other countries. They have a Constitutional right to own guns.
One person in particular seems to think he is a great intellect and that most others are stupid. Fine but keep that to yourself. Constant insulting of others, and not just on this thread, is counterproductive.

[Eki]

There is a price to be paid for true liberty. Those unwilling to pay that price will never have it.
So what Janis Joplin sang "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose (including your life)" was true?

[markabilly]

You, by the way are referring to an American but using a juvenile attempt at sarcasm and insult by using the nonsensical Amerikan to insult a nation of people of which I am not even related to. .

Thanks for disclosing that there is some other country that has to suffer your presence and "relationship". :up:

Maybe even explains how you might have acquirred your phony doctor status despite your ignorance and bad manners.

But being called base, jackass and all the rest by you, is the most high of compliments, as one must consider the source. And given to whom you have applied other such insults, it puts me in with some fine company!!! :D

The worst insult would be if you said I was as smart as you believe yourself to be. For I have no desire to be lowered to your level, for sure enough, dude.

Thanks, you made my day :up:

[markabilly]

There is a price to be paid for true liberty. Those unwilling to pay that price will never have it.
Not exactly accurate as there are many ungrateful people here and in other countries who have that liberty, but only thanks to the sacrifice of too many brave souls from this great and fine country.

[Rollo]

There is a price to be paid for true liberty. Those unwilling to pay that price will never have it.

Therefore the nearly 30,000 deaths per year in the United States due to firearms through both homocide and suicide, in your eyes is is obviously "The price to be paid for true liberty", or what I called an acceptable loss.
You've just taken pains to explain precisely why it's acceptable in your eyes.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

[glauistean]

Thanks for disclosing that there is some other country that has to suffer your presence and "relationship". :up:

Maybe even explains how you might have acquirred your phony doctor status despite your ignorance and bad manners.

But being called base, jackass and all the rest by you, is the most high of compliments, as one must consider the source. And given to whom you have applied other such insults, it puts me in with some fine company!!! :D

The worst insult would be if you said I was as smart as you believe yourself to be. For I have no desire to be lowered to your level, for sure enough, dude.

Thanks, you made my day :up:

Do you understand what you have written? My lord. Is the system of educating Americans that broken that some feel that to be insulted is a compliment and not even notice the irony and sadness of it.

Thank god you are not representative of all Americans.

As for my profession. Marabilly, if you wish to believe something, I am not the

person to debate the reliability and truth of the matter. If I state I am

something I do not care a whit whether you believe in my professional

credentials or not. You are very transparent son. You ridicule medicine by if

you believe I am an American. Then when informed I am not, you ridicule the

other countries of this good earth.

Make up your mind.

As for my intellect it is you and many others that have applied the label of

intelligence on me not the other way around. I do no care what your

impression is of my cerebral capability. I am more interested in the topic at

hand and how it is discussed. You have nothing to contribute and as such

are a waste of time.

[glauistean]

People who whine about suicide are not the same people who commit it.

People who would pull the trigger do not seek attention, because they know the decision is final.

People who cut themselves and/or self injure are in a different category. People who want attention do not kill themselves...

In every point you have made you are incorrect. Every single one. Do you

understand Major Depressive illness and the have you read any of the

volumes on suicidal tendancy and how to recognize it?

One part of your post is partially correct but falls into the area discussed and

that is the a gun in the home is seven times more likely to be used in suicide.

In fact two points. That suicide is a spontaneous act in most cases.

Suicidal patients are not "whiners" Mental illness is as serious as cancer or

heart disease.

You mention "attention seekers" and minimize the symptom. Read some of the

papers of the people listed below.

Sundström A, Alfredsson L, Sjölin-Forsberg G, et al. Association of suicide attempts retrospective Swedish study. BMJ.

[anthonyvop]

Guns in a home lead to suicide seven times more so than those without. What does that say to you, Anthony?

Suicide is a non-issue for me as I consider it the ultimate act selfishness and should not in any way, shape or form have any influence on my rights.

World wide the most popular form of Suicide is with Pesticides. Should we ban them as well? Rope?

Here is a study the cites an increase in teen suicides when TV networks televised news or feature stories about suicide. Should we ban those as well?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198609113151106




As for your number of defensive uses of a weapon, well to say the least , you are really grasping at straws. I understand you are a pro gun advocate irrespective of what anyone say , but when you use a statistic that has a differential of close to 2 million then that study or conclusion is of no merit. There just can't be that type of figure bandied about as it fails the standards and parameters of your basic study groups.

Knock yourself out.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

[Bob Riebe]

And how do you think you having guns would prevent that? If they and their guns outnumbered you, they'd eventually shoot you dead unless you surrendered your guns. OK, I get it: They wouldn't control your life, just your death.
In the U.S. they and there guns do not out number the civilian number of firearms, so your analogy is vacuous.

[airshifter]

Suicide is a non-issue for me as I consider it the ultimate act selfishness and should not in any way, shape or form have any influence on my rights.

World wide the most popular form of Suicide is with Pesticides. Should we ban them as well? Rope?

Here is a study the cites an increase in teen suicides when TV networks televised news or feature stories about suicide. Should we ban those as well?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198609113151106





Knock yourself out.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm


Maybe we should ban doctors, because as a percentage of deaths, they are much more deadly than both guns and cars combined! :D

As for suicide, maybe our self proclaimed expert on such subjects can explain for us why Japan has a high suicide rate when it is one of the strictest countries in the world in regards to gun control?

But I suspect dealing with any facts might not agree with his thread of placing himself on a pedestal for all to admire. After all, he has disregarded all valid comparisons so far. :rolleyes:

[Bob Riebe]

Without peace there can be no future."
Hmmm, it seems that there has never been peace in the world, it has always been men at arms that disrupt or cause what ever tranquility there has been so that particular statement is either false, or paranoid.

The sun always seems to rise.

[Bob Riebe]

You know there is a Melungeon evident in so many groups. It seems there is a plethora in this.

Are you saying you are their leader?

As you do get a continual dialog for your plenitude of troll threads, you are probably the troll King.

[Eki]

In the U.S. they and there guns do not out number the civilian number of firearms, so your analogy is vacuous.
1. You forgot that a majority of the civilians could be with them against you.

2. They have tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. against your revolver and semi-automatic rifle.

[Bob Riebe]

1. You forgot that a majority of the civilians could be with them against you.

2. They have tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. against your revolver and semi-automatic rifle.
The National Guard is a civilian Army designed to protect states residents from the Feds. They also have tanks, missles etc.
If the majority of the civilians are unarmed, they really do not amount to much of anything as far as being a deciding factor, now do they.

[Eki]

The National Guard is a civilian Army designed to protect states residents from the Feds. They also have tanks, missles etc.
If the majority of the civilians are unarmed, they really do not amount to much of anything as far as being a deciding factor, now do they.
What if the National Guard is on their side against you?

[markabilly]

Do you understand what you have written? My lord. Is the system of educating Americans that broken that some feel that to be insulted is a compliment and not even notice the irony and sadness of it.

Thank god you are not representative of all Americans.

As for my profession. Marabilly, if you wish to believe something, I am not the

person to debate the reliability and truth of the matter. If I state I am

something I do not care a whit whether you believe in my professional

credentials or not. You are very transparent son. You ridicule medicine by if

you believe I am an American. Then when informed I am not, you ridicule the

other countries of this good earth.

Make up your mind.

As for my intellect it is you and many others that have applied the label of

intelligence on me not the other way around. I do no care what your

impression is of my cerebral capability. I am more interested in the topic at

hand and how it is discussed. You have nothing to contribute and as such

are a waste of time.

Well............" the most asstoot" misses the obvious, again, again

must be going for the record of misses


glauistean really says:
I don't know anything. Are you familiar with the premise that there is occasion when the most astute miss the obvious, which has nothing to do with me?

Never mind. I am one of those that likes to pander and post nonsense to get plaudits while unable to contribute anything of substance nor understand it when it is staring me in the face. Hence my inane post.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[markabilly]

1. You forgot that a majority of the civilians could be with them against you.

2. They have tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. against your revolver and semi-automatic rifle.


some of us would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.....well maybe not everyone, as i am sure glueystem would rather live on his knees, with his rear end up in the air, letting others perform prostrate exams for you and your buddies :D

but hey, if it feels good, close your eyes and enjoy.


What I dont get is I get banned for suggesting that Danica should run around naked at the Indy 500.....something which she seems to have little issue with as long as it gets her good PR, but Guey gets to insult Starter and all the rest of us and live....and even brag about it.....

of course, unfortunately, much to my surprize, I find myself being forced to agree with much of what Starter is saying lately.....oh my!!!
live and learn

[ShiftingGears]

I don't know. What do you think? :) Are you familiar with the premise that there is occasion when the most astute miss the obvious?

Are you assuming you fall into that category? :D

[Bob Riebe]

What if the National Guard is on their side against you?

Not worried about that, happening.

[Eki]

Not worried about that, happening.
Why not? The State government and the National Guard could turn against you as easily as the Federal government and the US military, maybe even more so.

[Roamy]

I think I am going to buy the new Smith and Wesson 8 shot 357 mag revolver.
I don't like the thought of a pistol jamming and a hair trigger for the first round (assuming you keep one in the chamber) Although I like the 10mm. I am trying to stretch a concealed carry gun to one I can get away with while fly fishing rivers and streams in Grizz country. It appears the 357 is the only logical stretch. However if one is going into heavy Grizz areas then you need to take the 9 shot 12 gauge pump. Of course if you are going to Detroit you will need a Mac 10 auto :)

[glauistean]

The most obvious and glaring issues I see on this thread is the inability of many to accept the opinions of others.

That is fine when there is even the merest chance of getting a rational intelligent reply.

So far I find myself falling into the trap of sparring with people that don't read posts or selectively do and then decide that the best way to answer is to insult and denigrate.

Some are even so childish as to play games with a screename.

I am not on any "pedestal" as suggested. I studied my ass off for many years and spend many more in practice.

I always enjoyed good banter and really enjoyed the intelligent threads and

posts on the motor racing side.

Here I have spent a short time and all I get is insult or view insults from

certain members and they thankfully are few. What is most disconcerting is

the fact that knowledge of topics is very low among many and they will just

jump right in without thought or rational thinking on a topic.

I would prefer this thread be closed as all I see is aggressive, illmannered and

disruptive behavior.

[Eki]

And it was the people with guns and determination many years ago that made it possible for all to have their say today.

OK, whose guns made it possible for the women to vote in 1920? The soldiers of WWI? Or for those failed to pay taxes in 1964 and and the 18 year olds in 1971? The soldiers of the Vietnam War? Maybe the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war should bring the right to vote in the US for the Iraqis and the Afghans, since decisions made by the US government severely affect their lives (and deaths). Well, the Vietnamese don't get to vote in the US either, but at least they got their way in their country in the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States


These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on
The no religious test clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3.
"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870)
"On account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920)
"By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" (24th Amendment, 1964)
"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).

[Eki]

So, Eki and others, I'd like to point out that you don't get a vote. It's the business of the folks over here to sort it out.
That's fine by me. I'd just hope you'd let also people in other nations to sort their own internal affairs out by themselves and not invade them.

[janvanvurpa]

Although I've participated in this thread, I still find it amusing. All of those board members who are European trying to tell the Americans how to run their country. Considering that America has spent much money and blood pulling European bacon out of the fire for the last century or so.

So, Eki and others, I'd like to point out that you don't get a vote. It's the business of the folks over here to sort it out. We have lots of people who feel the way you do, but they are not in the majority. Not even close. The nice thing about being here is that those folks DO get to express their opinions and try and persuade people like me of the error of our ways. (Without success, at least as far as I'm concerned. :p ) And it was the people with guns and determination many years ago that made it possible for all to have their say today.


Is it possible for you to ever write anything that is not absurd and non-factual? Ever?

What does the US walking in at the last 6 months of a 4 1/2 year war and taking part in just a few offensive operations have to do with "saving their bacon' in WWI?

And similarly in WWII after our allies had carried the hugest part of the actual shooting war for again 4 1/2 years, and already killed 3 1/2 million or so of the bad guys, we finally enage in operations 1/5 the size of what they had been doing for years---and continued to do to the very end, what does THAT myth you out as an insult have to do with the violent nature of US society---which is the subject that you seem to have forgotten...


Second, you say "And it was the people with guns and determination many years ago that made it possible for all to have their say today" as if it were a fact, but anybody with more than a 10 year iolds understanding of US hisory would know that it was men poring over DESKS, and fighting with words in Congress and later in COURTS of LAW which gave everybody in the country to right to FREE SPEECH, and indeed it is those with lots of guns who have always been willing to deprive people of their rights of Free Speech.

As horrible as it is, soldiers dying in the mud has not been where our political liberties and especially the supposed universal Civil Rights have come from or been assured. That is childish to suggest, not worthy of polite or adult discussion..

As horrible as it is to say it has been dissidents, and protesters on the streets and lawyers representing them in US Courts against men with guns---men who believe and repeat twaddle and who never THINK what they are doing or saying whop have established and protected our Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights.

Why do you never think and when shown the superficiality and the dangers of remaining steadfastly superficial, why do you never revise the endless clichés you try and insult people with?


If this is too long for you to hold a thought, we can break it down into simpler one line type questions...

What I want to know is why a supposed ''Moderator'' is doing insulting people with your insults in your first paragraph-----because it is an insult and a tuant and is intended to be insulting and taunting..

Very immoderate, Moderator.

[Eki]

Is it possible for you to ever write anything that is not absurd and non-factual? Ever?

What does the US walking in at the last 6 months of a 4 1/2 year war and taking part in just a few offensive operations have to do with "saving their bacon' in WWI?

And similarly in WWII after our allies had carried the hugest part of the actual shooting war for again 4 1/2 years, and already killed 3 1/2 million or so of the bad guys, we finally enage in operations 1/5 the size of what they had been doing for years---and continued to do to the very end, what does THAT myth you out as an insult have to do with the violent nature of US society---which is the subject that you seem to have forgotten...
And may I add that Finland remained independent despite the US interference in Europe, not because of it. The Americans saved the bacon, canned it and gave it to the Soviets.

[janvanvurpa]

And may I add that Finland remained independent despite the US interference in Europe, not because of it. The Americans saved the bacon, canned it and gave it to the Soviets.

I know!
and if you want to think who US Military supported, look to the interference up in Kola Peninsula and down the railway from Murmansk and Archangel in the struggling of BOTH Finland and Russia when they were trying to establish democratic governments: they supported autocracy, the absolutist regime of the Czar--and the stooges surrounding it---rather than helping millions secure the Rights that "we' brag about constantly.

How might world history been different if US Military supported democratic governments in Russia and Finland rather than supporting the Autocrats?

(by the way Eki, I have read hours and hours of personal histories of the "slobos" as your relatives called them and many times the soldiers recalled just how excited they were to get American canned goodies which were a real treat cause Red Army grub was pretty basic... so you aren't far from the truth!)

[Eki]

(by the way Eki, I have read hours and hours of personal histories of the "slobos" as your relatives called them and many times the soldiers recalled just how excited they were to get American canned goodies which were a real treat cause Red Army grub was pretty basic... so you aren't far from the truth!)
Yes, Finnish war veterans have also told that sometimes they snatched food deliveries dropped from Soviet airplanes intended for Soviet troops and it was canned food with "made in the US" labels. They were somewhat annoyed that they were there supposed to be the last bastion of Western democracies against the Soviet Bolshevism and the US were feeding the Soviets. Anyways, it was good eating they said.

[Roamy]

OH here we go back to the WWII forum

[Eki]

OH here we go back to the WWII forum
There were a lot of guns in the WWII, so it's not off topic.

[Easy Drifter]

No but the anti US rhetoric is.

[Eki]

No but the anti US rhetoric is.
What about Starter's anti-Europe rhetoric?

[Tazio]

Is it possible for you to ever write anything that is not absurd and non-factual? Ever?

What does the US walking in at the last 6 months of a 4 1/2 year war and taking part in just a few offensive operations have to do with "saving their bacon' in WWI?

And similarly in WWII after our allies had carried the hugest part of the actual shooting war for again 4 1/2 years, and already killed 3 1/2 million or so of the bad guys, we finally enage in operations 1/5 the size of what they had been doing for years---and continued to do to the very end, what does THAT myth you out as an insult have to do with the violent nature of US society---which is the subject that you seem to have forgotten...


Second, you say "And it was the people with guns and determination many years ago that made it possible for all to have their say today" as if it were a fact, but anybody with more than a 10 year iolds understanding of US hisory would know that it was men poring over DESKS, and fighting with words in Congress and later in COURTS of LAW which gave everybody in the country to right to FREE SPEECH, and indeed it is those with lots of guns who have always been willing to deprive people of their rights of Free Speech.

As horrible as it is, soldiers dying in the mud has not been where our political liberties and especially the supposed universal Civil Rights have come from or been assured. That is childish to suggest, not worthy of polite or adult discussion..

As horrible as it is to say it has been dissidents, and protesters on the streets and lawyers representing them in US Courts against men with guns---men who believe and repeat twaddle and who never THINK what they are doing or saying whop have established and protected our Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights.


This is true to the word IMO.
It In and of itself it is not a reason to repeal the right to bear arms. As an American I think I would be unaffected by it if we did since I don't own any guns.

But back to the history lesson, a disproportionate amount of Americans believe that Franco-American military relations started in 1917. That is what they choose to believe.
The truth is that the US would not have had a chance to be in a position to succeed in our Revolutionary War if France hadn't bankrupted itself supporting us. Besides providing us with 90% of our gunpowder, the timeliness of French Naval Fleet that prevented General Howe from escaping by sea in the decisive battle of Yorktown, they also provided half the regular ground forces, not to mention artillery and the engineers to maximize their effectiveness in that engagement.
You have names like General Rochambeau who had to convince Washington to attack at Yorktown instead of New York. There is a prominent Statue of Marquis de Lafayette in DC to commemorate his contribution, He was an exceptional motivator and military mind especially effective in the guerilla warfare.

As to the twentieth century Woodrow Wilson did write a Letter to General Foch the supreme commander of allied forces near the conclusion of WW1 with what he thought would be fair terms of surrender for Germay. However Foch was not feeling too conciliatory after 1.5 million of his countrymen had made the ultimate sacrifice. This is arguably the direct reason that someone like Hitler was able to capture a degraded nation’s support.
But I think the actual distain for France came from a series of events that happened when allies liberated French cities. The French Underground was so well organized (and this would not have been possible without the assistance of the British who understood their importance long before the U.S. entered the conflict) that as each town was liberated they already had what amounted to a local government in place. "No need for occupation over here Yank, but thanks for the help".
C’est la vie :dozey:

[Bob Riebe]

Why not? The State government and the National Guard could turn against you as easily as the Federal government and the US military, maybe even more so.

You definitely do not understand U.S. society outside of the large cities. If you were born here you would know that that is not going to happen, as things stand.

Sadly the liberals and progressives who know nothing outside of their big city compounds, and kiss-ass narcissistic circle, are probably as mis-informed.

[Bob Riebe]

Well, the Vietnamese don't get to vote in the US either, but at least they got their way in their country in the end.


LOL, hmm, come to Minn. their are a large number of Vietnamese war veterans here, and you tell them that.

[Bob Riebe]

The Americans saved the bacon, canned it and gave it to the Soviets.

The Democratic party did that, not the Americans.

[Rollo]

Second, you say "And it was the people with guns and determination many years ago that made it possible for all to have their say today" as if it were a fact, but anybody with more than a 10 year iolds understanding of US hisory would know that it was men poring over DESKS, and fighting with words in Congress and later in COURTS of LAW which gave everybody in the country to right to FREE SPEECH, and indeed it is those with lots of guns who have always been willing to deprive people of their rights of Free Speech.

The Right to Free Speech existed in the United States from 1689 because of the Bill of Rights Act. The 13 colonies were British and therefore British Law applied.
Secondly the right to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" was also contained in the very same act.

Australia gained its "independance" for virtually all intents and purposes in 1901, New Zealand in 1907 and India in 1950, all without the use of guns and in all three cases "poring over desks, and fighting with words" "in courts of law."

[JackSparrow]

Guns do not kill people!

People kill people! end of story

[anthonyvop]

Yes, Finnish war veterans have also told that sometimes they snatched food deliveries dropped from Soviet airplanes intended for Soviet troops and it was canned food with "made in the US" labels. They were somewhat annoyed that they were there supposed to be the last bastion of Western democracies against the Soviet Bolshevism and the US were feeding the Soviets. Anyways, it was good eating they said.

Dude,

The Finns were fighting on the side of the NAZIs!!!! So forget that "last bastion of western Democracies" BS.

Ever hear of the saying.....The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

[airshifter]

The most obvious and glaring issues I see on this thread is the inability of many to accept the opinions of others.

<clipped>

What is most disconcerting is

the fact that knowledge of topics is very low among many and they will just

jump right in without thought or rational thinking on a topic.



Maybe you should consider that others often have opposing views, and the fact that it doesn't agree with your view doesn't make said view wrong, or due to lack of logical thought process.

This topic, and many others as or more caustic, have been discussed on the forums in the past. And though people respond with all types of differing views, it is very rare that someone throws out as many insults as yourself, including your attacking those or a person making a point you apparently didn't understand.

[glauistean]

Maybe you should consider that others often have opposing views, and the fact that it doesn't agree with your view doesn't make said view wrong, or due to lack of logical thought process.

This topic, and many others as or more caustic, have been discussed on the forums in the past. And though people respond with all types of differing views, it is very rare that someone throws out as many insults as yourself, including your attacking those or a person making a point you apparently didn't understand.
Are you on anything psychotropic? Your post is exactly as stated in MY post until you get to the part about me being the culprit of name calling and the rest of the rabid group that you affiliate yourself with are mere lambs. I am pounding on your poor sensibilities.

God, save me but I do get a great amount of schadenfreude when reading posts such as this one.

[Eki]

Guns do not kill people!

People kill people! end of story
No, no. That statement has been proven wrong twice in this thread already. First that it's not guns or people but bullets that kill people, then that it's not in fact even bullets but big gaping holes in vital organs that kill people.

[Bob Riebe]

No, no. That statement has been proven wrong twice in this thread already. First that it's not guns or people but bullets that kill people, then that it's not in fact even bullets but big gaping holes in vital organs that kill people.
That does not work because unless some causes the sear within a firearm to disengage, the bullet is incapable of initiating its own progress from the case down the barrel, much less guiding itself to its target.

Non-human sources have caused the lock-work within firearms to cycle, but no part of a firearm has ever initiated its own lock-work to cycle; therefore no firearm of any part of it has ever killed anything, what ever force/s initiated the cycle to commence is/are the only things that have ever killed anything with a firearm.

[Bob Riebe]

Are you on anything psychotropic? Your post is exactly as stated in MY post until you get to the part about me being the culprit of name calling and the rest of the rabid group that you affiliate yourself with are mere lambs. I am pounding on your poor sensibilities.

God, save me but I do get a great amount of schadenfreude when reading posts such as this one.
The Troll King has spoken; do not feed the Trolls.

[Eki]

That does not work because unless some causes the sear within a firearm to disengage, the bullet is incapable of initiating its own progress from the case down the barrel, much less guiding itself to its target.

Non-human sources have caused the lock-work within firearms to cycle, but no part of a firearm has ever initiated its own lock-work to cycle; therefore no firearm of any part of it has ever killed anything, what ever force/s initiated the cycle to commence is/are the only things that have ever killed anything with a firearm.
I remember a piece of news about a hunter who was shot by his dog. He had left his leaning at a tree stump, his dog played with the trigger and the bullet hit the hunter. So, you may as well say "guns don't kill people, dogs do".

[Easy Drifter]

Dogs do not usually bother with a gun. Fangs work well.

[Rollo]

Guns don't kill people, rappers do. Summon the police woo woo woo!

[markabilly]

got to agree with Starter....it was american troops and their increasing numbers in WW1 that broke the back of germany.....the bankers panicked and germany crashed.

And in WW2, if it were not AGAIN the presence of US troops, today the government of France would still be conducting business in either German or Russian

If the criminal killers were jailed, chopped and executed like suggested by Easy, there would be little criminal problems today.


But we got to protect them from themselves, thanks to the preachings of people like guey and eki, at the HUGE COST OF the lives of many innocent victims, because we have come to lack the courage and common sense to flush the criminal scum down the toilet....

but it is all about not holding people accountable in toto for their actions, oh no......

yes it must only be guns that kill people, and not criminals left loose to run around pulling the triggger. Because to think otherwise, would require that instead of banning guns from society, we would have to ban criminals from society, but the latter would be just too much of a real heartbreaker for the whiney intellectual to endure

[glauistean]

Who advocated banning guns?

[JackSparrow]

I remember a piece of news about a hunter who was shot by his dog. He had left his leaning at a tree stump, his dog played with the trigger and the bullet hit the hunter. So, you may as well say "guns don't kill people, dogs do".


Still a human error! The owner of the firearm should have had its safety ON,and not left it laying around carelessly!
The only way I see guns going on killing sprees is that suddenly they transform into some AI and try to take the world over!

[Tazio]

The Right to Free Speech existed in the United States from 1689 because of the Bill of Rights Act. The 13 colonies were British and therefore British Law applied.
Secondly the right to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" was also contained in the very same act.
I didn't know that!
Then again I am not versed in the evolution of British Law.
I hate to split hairs but;
The rights that we citizens of The United States of America are afforded,
were not established by British Royalty or any other designated representative thereof. ;)

[race aficionado]

http://gallery.me.com/emeseditorials#100109/guns-20don-t-20kill-20people-20--20--20-&bgcolor=black




:s mokin:

[airshifter]

Your dissertation is senseless and without any type of cohesive argument. You're rambling. You are all over the place and if I were you , a person that argues for guns but is scared of them and would prefer the "serenity" of a bow and arrow I would have you taken to the nearest psych ward as your meandering is an embarrassment to the "home of the brave".

This is from the first page. Yet you seem to think it's ok for you to address people in this manner, and that they should for some reasontreat you with respect?


Are you on anything psychotropic? Your post is exactly as stated in MY post until you get to the part about me being the culprit of name calling and the rest of the rabid group that you affiliate yourself with are mere lambs. I am pounding on your poor sensibilities.

God, save me but I do get a great amount of schadenfreude when reading posts such as this one.

And yet again... you can't seem to grasp the basic concept that people will treat you in a very similar manner to the way you treat them. Not only do you imply that I have issues, you attack "the rest of the rabid group" that I affiliate myself with. Maybe you should identify this group, since I doubt most of them or myself know we somehow share the same view without knowing it. Of course most posters realize they don't fit into the stereotypes you seem to enjoy, and instead they actually make their own decisions regarding these discussions. You seem to view it as those that agree with you, and those that are wrong.

Yet if you go back and read my post, it doesn't suggest, imply, or state that you were the only one tossing around insults. It simply states my opinion that you are getting in return the attitude you are projecting. I could multi quote all the caustic remarks and insults you've thrown about in a single thread, but I'm sure you would just ignore them and continue playing the victim.

[ShiftingGears]

This is from the first page. Yet you seem to think it's ok for you to address people in this manner, and that they should for some reasontreat you with respect?



And yet again... you can't seem to grasp the basic concept that people will treat you in a very similar manner to the way you treat them. Not only do you imply that I have issues, you attack "the rest of the rabid group" that I affiliate myself with. Maybe you should identify this group, since I doubt most of them or myself know we somehow share the same view without knowing it. Of course most posters realize they don't fit into the stereotypes you seem to enjoy, and instead they actually make their own decisions regarding these discussions. You seem to view it as those that agree with you, and those that are wrong.

Yet if you go back and read my post, it doesn't suggest, imply, or state that you were the only one tossing around insults. It simply states my opinion that you are getting in return the attitude you are projecting. I could multi quote all the caustic remarks and insults you've thrown about in a single thread, but I'm sure you would just ignore them and continue playing the victim.

:up:

[glauistean]

:up:

Far be it from me that you would seem so disturbed by my post. I did not

realize that you were so sensitive.

As for me playing the victim. I fight my own battles and will call out stupidity

when I see it.

Now you can say I do this regularly. Well, I can guarantee you that any

comment that I have made that you are whining about now was made

following a verbal assault on me. Post you deem as the my caustic remarks

made independent of another doing just the very thing you are so affected

by.

[glauistean]

Just so that I am clear on this and very clear. Squirrel and Airlifter. The first

attack on anyone on this particular thread was deleted by the moderator.

A person actually threatening me with violence is not only illegal even if used

by a hothead and is also prosecutable.


Now I would not bother with going to the police with this because that would

not solve anything.

My point is that Airlifter defends attacks on me by transference. Squirrel

gives him the thumbs up as an indication of his agreement with your post.

My question to both of you is; where were you with your prudish self

righteous indignation at my posts when I was subjected to threats on my life.

The post was up for a couple of days yet not one of you or your ilk bothered

to comment on it.

That would indicate selective abhorrence for posts. This only applies to mine.