Oblivion, the above is out of line. If you want to argue a point or comment that someone misreads your posts, fine, but if you insist on making blatant insults part of your posting, you'll be taking a vacation.

It wasn't an insult. He is in fact judgemental of me, and has in fact complained about being judged. These things, taken together, are hypocrisy. Understanding the hypocrisy of a given argument or statement is important to understanding where it fails. The fact is, he was judgemental and he has made a hypocritical statement to the fact. I fail to see how I've insulted his person.

If you want me to stop posting here, I will. I hold no emotional attachments to this forum, and it served merely as a stopgap while the Firearms forums were down. I don't like being subject to selective enforcement of given rules anyways...

[ 03-24-2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

Oblivion, namecalling is namecalling and if you have a specific arguement with someone and wish to directly call someone a hypocrite etc, use the private messages or email. I'm trying to maintain the order per the rules, that's all. Nothing personal!

[ 03-24-2004, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

I understand. No desire to cause real trouble... Will keep said discussion to private messaging.

Thanks, I appreciate it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The way I see it is Donut said Oblivion (not all progun Americans) was gun obsessed. As such there was no need for Cerek or anyone to get offended, because it's a statement of fact.

I dicuss God a lot. I get engaged in many discussions about God. If you called me "God obsessed" I would agree. It's just the way it is. Or Music obsessed. Or obsessed with history or travel or certain females, or the ocean.

Oblivion appears obsessed with guns to me too. But seeing as he is proguns, I repeat, this should not be taken as insulting should it?

Donut advised it's not healthy. I agree. Guns have a habit of wounding or killing people. That's what they are made to do. Project a piece of metal into flesh to cause as much damage as possible.

Calling someone a judgemental hypocrite is namecalling as it's a character assassination. It's not on.

I can't believe no one understands gun control...It's simple USE TWO HANDS!!

Yorick, guns aren't enriched plutonium. They don't hurt anyone JUST SITTING THERE! It's once you're irresponsible that someone gets hurt needlessly. You may not think so, but I think certain people deserve to get hurt. A lot.

Nuclear weapons, Anthrax, VX Nerve Gas, that stuff kills people even when you handle it properly! There's no proper way to dispose of nuclear waste. They burnt it at Area 51, and that didn't turn out so well. A firearm has to be loaded, readied, and the trigger pulled (in most cases, horridly poor-house weapons like the MAC-10 serve as an exception to that rule) to cause any damage. This understood, there's no reason to ban firearms from one set of hands while trusting them completely in another. That strikes me as odd. If you think guns are so dangerous, do you think soldiers and police officers should be trusted with them? If I thought as you did, I'd at least be consistent and say get rid of them, top to bottom.

Also, Yorick, I didn't insult anyone on this board's person. I merely pointed out that something was said in an absolutely hypocritical manner. This isn't my whole life (I'm guessing it isn't yours either) and guns aren't either. When my mind drifts, I think of two things: Money, and Sex... I'm male, and young, so it's rather natural that I think of sex, but the money thing is a real obsession for me. The more I read about schemes, hustles and dishonest dollar tricks, the more I'm interested in getting involved.

<font color=deepskyblue>This is an opinion- not irrefutable fact - and is highly subjective. For you and <font color=orange>Donut</font> to claim <font color=white>Oblivion's</font> "obsession" with guns is unhealthy is judgemental - since it is based on your individual opinions rather than objective data.

My original comment was actually just an observation of fact. <font color=orange>Donut</font> made a judgemental comment based on his own individual bias...and I felt it was also insulting to claim another person's "obsession" is unhealthy when the only basis for the claim is one person's opinion.

I also agree with <font color=white>Oblivion</font> getting upset about the rules enforcement simply because he has not learned to be as subtle and sly with his comments as other members have.

As for the rest of my original rant, I stand firmly by it. You can look in almost any thread you choose on C.E. to find members making insults and flamebaiting those that disagree with them rather than trying to understand - or at least respect - the other person's opinion.

Two years ago, when I joined IW, members here were able to discuss most topics without too much interference from the Mods. We had discussions on Satanism AND Religion that spread to two complete threads with each thread being nearly 10 pages long. Members of every religious affiliation and those with NO affiliation were able to discuss the issues calmly and with civility (for the most part). When things DID get heated, a one post reminder from the Mods' was all that was needed to calm things down again. Now we've reached the point where religion cannot be discussed AT ALL because members refuse to treat others with respect. The same goes for discussions on politics, abortion, and other "hot topics". It seems like members are more interested in "shooting down" opposing arguments rather than taking the time to actually consider the other person's perspective.</font>

I remember how things used to be around here. I've been on both sides, and on the fence on this issue. It was the cold, hard facts, staring me in the face, combined with a re-examination of what I really want out of life, that sends me on a particular jump here or there. This line of soul-searching is what put me on the side of the fence that I'm on with gun control.

I have a suggestion for EVERYONE not just one side or the other. Either take this to the topic or just let the subject go, because as far as I can see the thread is now becoming discussion of various members, not the gun laws.

NOBODY should be baiting or namecalling on either side. And claiming or implying mods are 'selective' or playing favorites doesn't help either.

Just so we're clear, I'm not taking sides on this issue. When mods post about an infraction, they are not taking sides, their responding to what they've seen or been asked to look at.

Please remember, we aren't here 24/7 and none of us is able to read every post of every thread every day. If we miss something that someone feels needs attention, they need to report it. Otherwise it isn't guranteed it will be seen. That doesn't mean your view of what's wrong will mesh with the mod's view but if he/she hasn't seen the item in question, they can't decide.


Again, please refrain from discussing other members as if they aren't even here. One thing that most of you seem to remember fondly about serious threads here was that people RESPECTED one another and had serious dialogs without namecalling and flaming or baiting. Why not try and do that again? It could work. But only if everyone wants to make it work. Don't take bait if it's laid out and keep in mind that if everyone waits for the other guy to change first, it's gonna be a long wait.

I KNOW we've had good, long, serious debates on IW. That's not the issue. Whether all the current participants can let baggage go and continue to have those good, RESPECTFUL, if discussions with different viewpoints, waits to be seen.

Hehe... Cloudy double-posted. :D

Anywho, I agree with Cerek and others' assertion that in previous times we were able to discuss matters such as religion and gun control in a more respectful manner. In fact, I inadvertantly broke the religious discussion taboo with a thread that ultimately resulted in it being acceptable again -- only to have the privilege revoked a few months later due to flaming, etc.

I do not deny my own culpability on this issue. I certainly have contributed flaming/insulting remarks as time has gone on. In fact, Larry called me to the carpet just a day or two ago for being insulting in a thread that is likely still active.

I am guilty, I admit. However, we are the same group of people that have been discussing the issue for a long while. We have been respectful of each others' views, but that respect turned to anger or stonewalled disagreement over time because neither side could convince the other of their view. As a result, flames started ocurring. Maybe some of us, like me, are just done with trying to educate this particular group of people, and are basically ready to move on to another site or forum. Dunno. Time will tell.

LOL, I fixed the double posting. ;)

I agree, Timber, sometimes people who've had the same argument a few dozen times and neither side budged an inch seem to think that browbeating and namecalling will work better than the respectful discourse they've been using. It isn't better, rarely makes the other guy want to see your point of view as his own and inevitably it degenerates into a contest because neither side wants to lose or look like they've lost by simply bowing out.

Hmm, well in answer to the end of your particular post, Timber, my questions is this- why does anyone have to 'educate' another member? Is simply exchanging views, seeing how the 'other side' thinks and feels and accepting that you have at least swapped info and become more aware of each other as human beings and people you interact with not a possiblity? Does someone HAVE to 'learn a specific lesson' for it to be meaningful?

That's the part I've never understood about the 'pissing contests'. Winning or losing isn't the issue in most of these discussions. Giving one's opinion and facts and learning how others feel on a subject doesn't necessarily have to end in namecalling.

I'm a faithful Christian but I've never felt the need to call people who are of another religion or completely disbelieve all I believe in, any foul names in order to somehow make them take up living the same way I do. I have certain beliefs about guns, but I don't think forcefeeding my opinion to other members here will change their views, necessarily. It might give them greater insight into me as a person and I can learn more about them, but in the end, we'll go our seperate ways and IF someone changes their mind about an issue after a respectful discussion, that's great, some dialog and serious thought has taken place. If they don't, that's ok too, it won't radically change how I live my life from day to day but I'll be a little richer for the experience.

At any rate, the discussions here should be done respectfully. It IS possible, as we've seen in the past. Perhaps those who've gotten to 'break point' on a particular issue could consider making their opinion known in any new threads if they choose to, then bowing out before their blood pressure rises and they get the urge to start smashing others or tossing out insults.

Basically, if you're at a point where you feel like you're hitting a brick wall, back up! Go another way- find another thread and participate there, or go out for some air and enjoy a movie, your friends, a beer, anything but bashing at members of the forum.

[ 03-25-2004, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

Sorry for resurrecting an old topic, but would anyone disagree with me using their arguments discussed here for a school project?

Fine by me, Dplax -- all this time-consuming banter ought to get put to some use. Feel free to steal my random thoughts all you like and claim them as "research" -- you don't even have to cite me. ;)

Why, Cloudy my dear, I agree that generally you "share ideas." However, some arguments made on a topic are meritless due to logical flaws. In some instances, when I see these, I point them out. It usually only dismisses a particular fine-point someone is making -- and it never "sovles" the overall problem -- but it does help set ground rules. Because some things are not arguable, are in fact unassailable, I call them "education" rather than "thoughts/ideas" -- because "thoughts/ideas" implies you can disagree, and on some things disagreeing simply makes you wrong.

Oh, and then there's the fact that when I'm being an ass I like to talk down to other people. Gift/curse of the profession. :D

[ 04-29-2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

The use of our arguments as material for a school project would be alright with me, and I specifically state that you may use my statements as you wish, barring de-contextualization of a particular argument to distort its intentions.

Fine with me dplax

I had forgotten about this topic, and thought it had gone away, BUT.....

Yorick, musician you are! God fearing, you claim to be! But on guns, you have lost all reality.

Point in which to remain on topic, and to discuss your post, in this thread.

We just culminated 12 days of intense training, of a BN headed to the sand land in the very near future. 478 soldiers training for a different set of 'Soldier Skills' these are not every day grunts. They also are not every day soldiers, they belong to the National Guard(state militia), citizen soldiers if you will. They carried weapons every day, all 478 of them. M16A2, M4, & a few M9. And to direct contention with your above statement, NOT A SINGLE WEAPON KILLED! AMAZING.

A gun is an inanimate object! Really, it is. However, the person who USES it, is the 'killer'. And killer is what it should all be about. A plain old ordinary baseball bat is nothing more than a piece of wood. Can it kill? NOPE. But a psychopath could kill with it. Should we now ban all baseball bats? Hardly not! Masters of the secret art can kill with bare hands, should we then remove everyones hands? I think not.

A true story for you. I spent over 3 years at Ft Knox, Ky in the late 90's. My civilian friend was a conceal carry instructor. He carried 24/7 'period'. We were low on fuel and stopped in a not so perfect spot of Louisville, no cc at the pump etc. While inside, a thug attempted to rob the place, "Smith & Wesson" was at hand, the thug was so 'stunned' not only did he drop his gun, he left without even a petty theft. Now I will admit, not everybody has that much intestinal fortitude, but the folks I partake in friendship with do. Also, once you are looking at the business end of a "S&W" .45, and are untrained, the fight or FLIGHT factor kicks. And though this guy was closer to sober/straight than drunk/cracked he realized the disadvantage was on him. That day, 2 gun's were brought into the situation, AND NEITHER ONE KILLED, OR WOUNDED!

I bet if you wacked somebody on the side of the head with your microphone you could wound them pretty good. If you accidentally hit the wrong spot, you could drop him dead in his tracks. Then what? We would have to ban microphones? NOPE. But control the psyco. You see, it's not really 'Gun Control' but we can't publicly have 'psyco control' that would be unconstitutional!

It aint so secret [img]smile.gif[/img] My Kung Fu master (or rather, the organisation he is a part of) charges $400NZ per year to teach me the deadly arts [img]smile.gif[/img]

I agree with you Felix (Holy SH*T!!!!! :D ). I place much higher importance over the taming of human killer instincts than over removing particular weapons. Our species has evolved aggressive tendencies as a means of surviving in 'natural' environments that nonchalantly kill off the weak of will or body. Yet now that homo sapiens have created their OWN environments, sans natural predators and elemental barrages, they can stand to un-evolve these aggressive traits too. Removing 'weapons' will not achieve this end. Only subtle psychological conditioning (rationality training, responsibility education, interdependence exposition etc etc), generation after generation after generation will dampen/deaden the anti-social side-effects of our species' communal lifestyle.

[ 04-30-2004, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

heh, my uncle is one of the grandmasters for ju jitsu (no joking, he's one of the seven) and is decidedly more lethal than most people with handguns (accuracy at the most common range of 30 ft is about 10 - 20% on average. accuracy for my uncle at his range (as far as he can reach with whatever weapon he has... or his hands) is 100%.

BUT, having trained so many years, niether he, nor his students would use that art on another if it werent absolutely necessary. i dont support gun control, i support gun awareness.

I hope my home state was good to you and treated you amicably. Kentuckians pride ourselves in a long military tradition of contributing crack shots to the causes of the USA -- hey, we're known for it. Even I, a namby-pamby liberal product of the state, know my way around a decent firearm (And can shoot decently -- but not like my deadeye uncle ;) ).
[img]graemlins/usa.gif[/img]

Can't remember the last time I read a headline "16 slaughtered by man with a baseball bat"

or "23 murdered by unarmed martial arts expert"

It's true that many items can be used to kill, but guns do it more quickly and efficiently than other tools.

If the killer is a 5 year old is that what it's all about?

Gee, Donut, The Boston Strangler murdered more than 20 women. I wonder why he was called the "strangler" and not the "shooter". Jeffery Dahmer didn't use a firearm either.

A firearm is no more "quickly and efficiently" lethal than anyother weapon.

Rubbish! Try to kill someone with a punnet of loganberries and see how far you get.

i would like to point out that the percent of murders in mexico is no less than here, even though they have complete gun control...

...their criminals are good with knives. there will ALWAYS be criminals and murderers. take away the guns and they'll simply use more primitive weapons. thats why education is so important, treat the cause, not the symptom.

Are these similar to eldarberries? If so, *in faux french accent* I fart in your general direction! Now run away or I shall taunt you again! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

EDIT: BTW .... what's a punnet?

[ 04-30-2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Touche.
It's also about education. A 5 yr old should not have access to a weapon. That goes back to parenting (or lack there of). My daughter can clear, dissasemble, clean, assesemble, and perform a functions check on my two home defense guns. At the range she can, load, fire, and perform immediate action on the same two home defense guns. She's 12. However, she fully understands that she is not allowed to mess with them. To answer your liberal concern, yes they are locked, no she doesn't know where the keys are. Why, she's a kid! Kids are curious creatures. Are they loaded? Not in the house, during daylight. When are they loaded, only 1, at night and it goes into a 'finger sensor' lock box. Why, it's a home defense gun. Why, it's my RIGHT!!!!!!!

Goes back to 'psychopath' headline news will not report 1 killed by baseball bat murderer, be on lookout for guy with bat in your hood. But headlines will make it when 'Shoot-out' in the hood leaves 3 lying on ground. We must take away all guns, before it happens again. Guess what? It will happen again. Why, because law abiding citizens will be stipped of their rights, and the lawless will then have free rein to do as they please. Then what, are you going to cry at the government? Little tears rolling down your cheeks, Stop them!

Try listening to Eminem, more specfic, the album "The Eminem show", listen closely to the lyrics, you will hear real stuff, real pain. There's also a few guest tracks on their, but one will allow you to understand the thought. "Just gotta have my face in the paper" and all along he's talking about being a real hood criminal. Then and only then, can the 'Guns are evil' crowd understand why guns are their weapon of choice. Why? TO MAKE YOU JOHHNY GOOD SHOES WANT TO TAKE THEM AWAY. But they will only take away the law abiding citizens weapons, because as pointed out earlier, there's not enough police to go into the hood and take them.

Later at 5. Next headlines, operation disarm America, Soldiers and Marines will be in your hood over the next several days to strip you of all firearms. You can see how well this is working live on "CNN" daily! Is that what you want?


Besides, coming from a person who has a model 1837 cannon shooting a chicken for dinner, ought to know better!

Careful, Donut's touchy about that cannon. ;)

BTW, the quote from the Eminem Show actually is something said by another rapper (if I remember correctly, one of the D12 crew).

Of course, for the opposite view of the issue, you can listen to the song "Hollywood" on the same album. ;)

Thanks everyone who replied for your feedback. I'm probably having to do it in two weeks time for school.

Then how come knives are used far more often in crimes than guns?

You know that majority has only been mitigated since guns were illegalized in areas where the majority has been mitigated?

A knife is a far stealthier, and in some cases, faster weapon than a gun could ever be. Barring two firearms invented by a Russian gunsmith at Izhevsk, no weapon is nearly as quiet as a knife in dispatching someone. Or an icepick. Guess what, if I were to walk up behind you and put one hand on your forehead, and jam an icepick in the back, up to your cerebrum, you'd die quickly of a cerebral hemmorage, and guess what, you wouldn't make much noise when I did it. If I shot you in the back of the head, the gun alone would alert others to my dastardly deed. This isn't a problem if you're an ordinary citizen or a cop taking down a deadly assailant or such, as people knowing evil is afoot by your shooting is a good thing. Help can be gotten in the case of injuries or whatever, and the offender is injured or surprised, but with the new attention to the situation, they most certainly won't be sticking around, and if they aren't carrying a gun, your chances of walking away from the situation is pretty damn good. You stand a 24.7% chance of dying if you comply with a mugger/burglar's requests. You stand a 17.3% chance of dying if you fight back. That 7.4% is considerably valuable. Not to mention, if you do shoot, your chances are at about 3% that you'll hit the wrong person, cops have an average of 11 times that.

Check it out at Just Facts...

First, about your home state. Yes they provide good hospitality to the armed forces in the region. And I do believe the term "Kentucky Windage" came from one of the great shots from the 'Bluegrass State', Daniel Boone maybe.

Where does Donut hail from? Maybe he doesn't realize it, or maybe he does. But that's a model 1837 French cannon, maybe that's why the target is what it is??

From the Eminem show, correct, that is one of the guest tracks, O.B. Trice if my memory holds true.

What do you think, tracks: 10,14, 16-17 ought to be just fine for a good understanding of what our youth is listening / thinking about.

He didn't kill 20 people in 60 seconds though!

These are excellent points, Oblivion! [img]smile.gif[/img]

(BTW, I do own two handguns and have found that those who don't obey the laws have made it harder for those of us who do to get a gun now!)

He didn't kill 20 people in 60 seconds though! </font>[/QUOTE]And how often does that happen? Besides, gimme a Cordoba, a tank of gas, 3 grams of PCP and a lowbrow mug from Chicago, and I'll not only have him kill 20 people in 60 seconds, he'll run over a cop, set fire to a church and crash the car into a school, maiming 3, killing none. All 3 would happen to be tax auditors. Are you saying we should illegalize certain cars due to their high structural integrity?

He didn't kill 20 people in 60 seconds though! </font>[/QUOTE]This is a statement born of fear and nothing more. While a firearm allows for injuries to be dealt at a distance and some even have high rates of fire, dealing a leathal wound still requires proper placement. Also, given the both the frightening sound a firearm emmits alerting everyone in range of the danger plus the good ole flight or fight instinct, the only ways this many people are gonna die in 60s are if they are all in a tightly confined space and cannot flee or the shooter is dealing with some serious military hardware. You just will not see this mortality rate with a pistol or even most assault weapons.

Even in the infamous Columbine incident, a confined space if you ask me, only 8 students, 1 teacher were killed and about 20 more wounded and that took longer than 20 min.

As have been said before, there are many other ways to deal death that are more effictive and even more silent than a firearm. Do we ban these items as well? They very likely reside in your home or tool shed.

Glad to hear it, Felix, I'll pass it along. I have a few friends from KY enjoying a desert tour right now, and I know they give a damn.
Those tracks are:
10. Without Me
14. Hailie's Song
16. When the Music Stops
17. Say What You Say

Yes, all good tracks. It's not just about what the youth is listening to, it's about truth, even if truth has to come at you in an offensive and tongue-in-cheek way. IMO, it's what we all should be thinking about. Young at heart, right?

Oi! Will ya'll just let the Topic Die before someone get's a baseball bat to the head (literally or metaphorically)

Hey, just because you are the topic starter, does not mean 'we are going to bow down and let you tell us when to end it'.

So be careful how you go about [img]graemlins/rambo.gif[/img] it while your [img]graemlins/dancing.gif[/img] .

You are welcome to stop posting at your earliest convenience. Otherwise, bugger off -- and I mean that in the nicest of ways. :D

*Skips some of the discussion cause he just wants to add his two cents*

I'm all for gun ownership, but I'm also a little for gun control.

If gun control can work in such a way where few criminals can get guns illegally, then I'm for it. (Being realistic here, like someone said, laws don't always work. However, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law as long as it doesn't violate someone's rights, IMO)

I'm all for gun ownership, if those gun owners are responsible. I think anyone who owns a gun should have to take a gun safety class as well as be required to keep the gun/s away from those who shouldn't even have easy access to them.

I'm all for gun ownership of those semi-automatic or automatic weapons, as long as they're for collecting and just for competitions and such. I see no point in someone owning a machine gun just to protect their family or hunting.

Shooting Competitions, ok, what I mentioned above, nope. I need a good reason why a machine gun does a better job of protecting oneself or family than a regular handgun other than that it shoots faster than a handgun or is more accurate (Or more likely to kill).

I'm no gun-owner myself, seeing as how I lack the strength to even pull the trigger. :D