Gun Control?

[Cloudbringer]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Hehe... Cloudy double-posted.

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.

[Cloudbringer]

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 ]

[dplax]

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

[Timber Loftis]

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 does anyone have to 'educate' another member?

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.

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

[Oblivion437]

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.

[Yorick]

Fine with me dplax

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Yorick: 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.

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!

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: Masters of the secret art can kill with bare hands, should we then remove everyones hands? I think not.

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!!!!! ). 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 ]

[promethius9594]

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.