Mongo the Mutterer
Member
I put the troll hook out first... 
"But guns were MADE for killing"
- Thread starter Drjones
- Start date
- Status
Titan6
member
Bad Mongo! No AK for you....
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Mongo don't want AK ... they are scawwwy...
Anyway already have a few....
An AR would be nice, however...
Anyway already have a few....
An AR would be nice, however...
hankdatank1362
Member
It's a shame that some troll is probably going to get this otherwise very interesting thread locked.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Que, Firearms have been stolen from locked homes or places of business which were broken into by criminals. Firearms have been stolen from locked safes within locked houses or places of business when broken into by criminals.
If Jack does not lock up his weapon...
At what level does one, or should I say, "You, Que", stop spreading the blame/negligence from the initial victim (my firearm was stolen, a willful act by another) to use of same by a criminal who had to add cartridges (a second willful act) and then commit a felony?
Some have taken the spread of blame so far as to go back to the firearms mfgs... or they tried to do so in lawsuits... most, if not each, defeated in court by some judge who could and did actually apply logic... which I fail to see in your above quote.
Perhaps your logic might be applied towards the actions of a gunowner who has firearms in the same house as children and does not secure them. Should my child gain access to an "unlocked and loaded" firearm and harm himself or another through no willful act or criminal behavior on his part, just plain old stupidity or carelessness or thoughtlessness on the part of each party.
I grew up in a house where firearms were kept under parent's bed, in parent's closet, down in father's basement workshop. Any ammunition was kept locked up, but I knew where it was, I knew where the keys were kept, I had access to everything if I so chose.
And yet, back then (early 60's) this was not uncommon.
Why do we need your law, your spreading of blame for criminal action, your desire to punish someone for the actions of another? Will it stop criminal activity and if so, how? Will it add to the prison population and require more governmental control of yet another human being who was doing pretty well until his home got robbed/burglarized and old Que's law of spreading the blame around came up?
Pray tell?
Oh, regarding the 2nd... Read the exact wording the Madison wrote and offered to the House of Representatives, read the language they approved and then read what came out of the Senate to be ratified and accepted. A few words dropped here and there to simplify meaning... only to mystify some lawyers, judges and hoplophobes in the mid to late 20th century.
Well, not really mystify, they each tend to make money somehow off their (ahem) newfound understanding of common sense words drafted oh so long ago. Gotta pay the bills ya know?
marcodelat
Member
Que,
I don't post here much... just read... and learn.
learn this, Que: I am an AMERICAN
1) I own a pistol because I want to own a pistol.
2) I like owning a pistol.
3) I have a right to (presently) own a pistol.
No other reason... needed or given. Period!
- Bye Que.
I don't post here much... just read... and learn.
learn this, Que: I am an AMERICAN
1) I own a pistol because I want to own a pistol.
2) I like owning a pistol.
3) I have a right to (presently) own a pistol.
No other reason... needed or given. Period!
- Bye Que.
Deanimator
Member
"Many"? Really? HOW many?
More than drown in plastic buckets?
Just HOW is someone going to TAKE my weapon, especially since I consider that as an automatic cue for me to SHOOT them with it?
Do you perhaps instead mean "steal"? If so, do you imagine that I'll stand around tapping my foot impatiently while they try to get into the safe?
Your knowledge of firearms, self-defense AND physical security seem equally ephemeral...
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Que -- ¿What?
Que, dude, your discussion is not honest.
I went back and re-read everything you posted prior to my own post.
You DID, however, say this:
So, no, you didn't say the word "banned" or "disarmament" but instead framed the same outcome by suggesting that a world body committed to the disarmament of all citizens be allowed to "control" the guns. Not terribly subtle.
Your first post didn't mention that you'd ever owned guns, nor that you liked them, nor that you had any familiarity with them. You further asserted that
By the way, you also assert:
Finally this:
For someone who insists that others "get some comprehension" you exhibit a marked tendency toward "willful misunderstanding" of what others write.
1) Guns were made for killing. Simply a statement of the obvious.
2) If you think that "to wound" is a valid method of stopping a threat, then you have not done enough research nor had legitimate self defense training.
From the phrasing of your posts, it seems you have some moral objection to killing. Although you don't say so, it seems you object to the killing of anyone at all. Perhaps this is incorrect, but your continued emphasis on "guns are made for killing" would create that impression.
On the other side of this coin, you would propose the "global control" of all guns. The only body with any kind of "global" standing is the U.N. which is committed to disarming society completely -- except for police/military. History -- even recent history -- has demonstrated that disarmament is a prelude to mass exterminations.
This presents an interesting dichotomy: if you do, indeed, object to killing, then you would never propose the kind of global control that is guaranteed to result in killing on a scale never seen before on this planet.
It is possible that you simply have a problem articulating your ideas well, and just imagine that people will correctly conclude your personal viewpoints without your ever having to introduce yourself and/or establish your views plainly for those in the discussion.
However, I have noticed that your writing style has changed, and your phrasings have altered. I notice that you withhold enough information to lure someone into making a statement "assuming" your experience and viewpoint, and then you trot this information out as "evidence" that the other guy somehow isn't paying attention or is somehow lacking comprehension.
This is a dishonest form of argumentation.
I would point out that I have never called you an ass.
Now, why would I say that? Well, I could be trying to assert that you somehow said that I made that claim.
You never said that I called you an ass.
I find that highly suspicious. Why would you fail to claim that I called you an ass, when it's obvious that I could have meant it?
If you are so perceptive, and the rest of us are so lacking in comprehension, I fail to understand how you could have missed such an obvious inferred and unspoken/unwritten insult.
You know nothing of my background, so how do you KNOW I'm not a racist?
How can you be certain I don't think you're an ass?
I would suggest that you either A) rapidly get yourself oriented and stop behaving like a troll, or B) seriously consider whether I should call you an ass.
Que, dude, your discussion is not honest.
I went back and re-read everything you posted prior to my own post.
So what? Since I never said you did, and never implied you did, you have stood up a straw man. You seem fond of telling people to "read what I wrote" as you chastise them for "misunderstanding" you. I went over my post, and I can guess which paragraph you mis-read to create your straw man, but since I never said you supported disarmament, I'm certainly not going to argue that point.
You DID, however, say this:
The proposal of . . . global control over them . . . is as sure a way to get all guns banned as there is. It is well known that the U.N. is actively working to disarm -- globally -- the common man, leaving weapons in the hands of police and militaries. This is the recipe for genocide and mass exterminations.
So, no, you didn't say the word "banned" or "disarmament" but instead framed the same outcome by suggesting that a world body committed to the disarmament of all citizens be allowed to "control" the guns. Not terribly subtle.
Funny, you went out of your way to create the impression that you were new to, or unfamiliar with, guns and the culture surrounding their ownership.
Your first post didn't mention that you'd ever owned guns, nor that you liked them, nor that you had any familiarity with them. You further asserted that
which is true, inasmuch as legislation will never curb any desire of any kind, but it implies that man is a bloodthirsty animal. You, personally, may have that problem. I don't, and the vast majority of people of my acquaintance don't. Another straw man.
By the way, you also assert:
which contradicts other reports on the matter.
Finally this:
And . . . ? I was stating that these were things I learned.
For someone who insists that others "get some comprehension" you exhibit a marked tendency toward "willful misunderstanding" of what others write.
Two things:
1) Guns were made for killing. Simply a statement of the obvious.
2) If you think that "to wound" is a valid method of stopping a threat, then you have not done enough research nor had legitimate self defense training.
Very, very odd that you would take such pains to leave this piece of information out in your first four posts.
From the phrasing of your posts, it seems you have some moral objection to killing. Although you don't say so, it seems you object to the killing of anyone at all. Perhaps this is incorrect, but your continued emphasis on "guns are made for killing" would create that impression.
On the other side of this coin, you would propose the "global control" of all guns. The only body with any kind of "global" standing is the U.N. which is committed to disarming society completely -- except for police/military. History -- even recent history -- has demonstrated that disarmament is a prelude to mass exterminations.
This presents an interesting dichotomy: if you do, indeed, object to killing, then you would never propose the kind of global control that is guaranteed to result in killing on a scale never seen before on this planet.
It is possible that you simply have a problem articulating your ideas well, and just imagine that people will correctly conclude your personal viewpoints without your ever having to introduce yourself and/or establish your views plainly for those in the discussion.
However, I have noticed that your writing style has changed, and your phrasings have altered. I notice that you withhold enough information to lure someone into making a statement "assuming" your experience and viewpoint, and then you trot this information out as "evidence" that the other guy somehow isn't paying attention or is somehow lacking comprehension.
This is a dishonest form of argumentation.
I would point out that I have never called you an ass.
Now, why would I say that? Well, I could be trying to assert that you somehow said that I made that claim.
You never said that I called you an ass.
I find that highly suspicious. Why would you fail to claim that I called you an ass, when it's obvious that I could have meant it?
If you are so perceptive, and the rest of us are so lacking in comprehension, I fail to understand how you could have missed such an obvious inferred and unspoken/unwritten insult.
You know nothing of my background, so how do you KNOW I'm not a racist?
How can you be certain I don't think you're an ass?
I would suggest that you either A) rapidly get yourself oriented and stop behaving like a troll, or B) seriously consider whether I should call you an ass.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Whoa!
Gonna shut this one down for the time being. If the mod who has jurisdiction sees a reason to reopen it, it will be reopened.
Gonna shut this one down for the time being. If the mod who has jurisdiction sees a reason to reopen it, it will be reopened.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Open for Discussion
After consulting with Justin, we've decided to let the thread run...for a while longer. Might I remind one and all to keep it civil, and use reasoned, informed argument to address the issues rather than emotion. It's a hot-button topic for most of us...and while we realize that we won't likely change Que's mind...if we make our points in a clear, concise manner, we just might change someone's mind who happens to stumble onto it at a later date.
Gentlemen...Carry on!
After consulting with Justin, we've decided to let the thread run...for a while longer. Might I remind one and all to keep it civil, and use reasoned, informed argument to address the issues rather than emotion. It's a hot-button topic for most of us...and while we realize that we won't likely change Que's mind...if we make our points in a clear, concise manner, we just might change someone's mind who happens to stumble onto it at a later date.
Gentlemen...Carry on!
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Oops
(Nothing to see here . . . move along)
(Nothing to see here . . . move along)
Last edited:
MikePGS
Member
A gun is essentially a means by which you can multiply your own force. I don't care how strong you are, you probably can't hit someone as hard as a little chunk of lead flying faster than sound waves. Really if you want to get down to it, if your anti gun then your against equal rights because a gun is the ultimate equalizer. If a woman is on the verge of getting raped what would you rather she have, a cell phone she can use to call the police or a loaded pistol that she knows how to shoot well with? And really isn't that the hypothetical womans choice to make and not yours? As many people have already said yes guns are made for killing but sometimes that needs to happen. Noone (or at the least very few people) wants to kill someone for the most part, but i'll tell you this much: If your coming after me and you end up getting shot thats really your own fault.
OK - 1st let's get a few FACTS out there:
year 2004: deaths by
Age under 1 : Firearm accident: 1
Ages 1-4: Drowning: 430
----------Homicide/gun: 36
----------Struck: 15
----------Firearm accident: 14
Ages 5-9: Suffocation: 45
----------Homicide/Gun: 45
----------Struck: 21
----------Firearm Accident: 13
Ages 10-14: Homicide/Gun: 139
------------Poisoning: 47
------------Suicde/Gun: 36
------------Firearm accident 35
Ages 15-19: Homicde/Gun: 1578
-------------Falling: 87
------------ Firearm accident 80
Total accidental death by firearm age 0-19: 143
Total accidental death ALL ages: 649 (.6% of all deaths)
Not all that many children, of ANY age dying accidentally by firearm - IT IS A MYTH!!
joab
Member
I googled ( a very easy operation) the words as you presented them and got no hits whatsoever
And what does that tell you about the infallibility of the rest of you "statistics"
Yeah a person like that might post erroneous information as fact, without checking his sources, just to prove his point
Let me tell you one of my much told tales
A few years ago my 100 pound wife was approached by a suspicious acting man at a local shopping mall, she used her legally owned handgun to ward him off and protect herself and my young son.
Two days later that same man kidnapped raped and brutally murdered an unarmed woman at another local shopping mall. Go tell her that a gun will not prevent her from being killed
Got any of your statistics on how many times that happens per year compared to how many time a firearm is used to defend an innocent, I do
Got another tale for you.
Three years ago my doddling old gray haired daddy was accosted by two men who were trying to rob him. He subdued them with his legally owned handgun. They were tied to several strong armed robberies against unarmed elderly people in the area They got about fifteen years a piece.
Go tell him that a gun will not prevent him from being robbed.
This board is full of personal accounts such as these
Why don't you give us your stat and a link ?
Admit it, you thought you were going to catch us with our pants down with that common enemy quote didn't you?
Did you hear that the same place that you got the 92% statistic?
Yes, it is not that uncommon.
I have a friend who hunts Russian Boar with a knife, I knew a guy growing uoi that hunted then with a spear, until he missed once
Here's an exercise for you, Google up "Boar Hunt knife" and see how many references you get. It'll be a whole lot more than that common enemy thing will get you.
Source of this information?
I don't get the analogy.
Is Bill Bob's wife? If not how does beating him up make Bob a wife beater?
If not then why is Bill in Bob's house making these kinds of accusations and why does he not deserve to be taken outside?
I don't mind someone being against guns or simply for the global control of guns, so much as it irritates me for someone to base their argument on blatant ignorance with no inclination to verify their facts before using them in an argument.
Please note how I addressed each one of you statements without opening a new post, neat trick huh?
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
¿Que?
Gosh.
He's gone.
* Sigh *
Gosh.
He's gone.
* Sigh *
Mandirigma
Member
Sorry, I think I dun runned Que off.
I got irked.
I got irked.
Harold Mayo
Member
Haven't waded through the whole thread but my advice is this: Read Jeff Cooper's "Art of the Rifle". It's late and I don't have the quote in front of me but Cooper states that the (weapon) is a tool and, as a tool or inanimate object, it has no sense of morality...it's neither good nor evil. If an evil man uses a weapon for evil purposes, the weapon is still just a tool extending and enabling the will of the evil man. If a good man uses the weapon, it's used for a good purpose (killing the evil man or providing food).
Yeah, guns are made for killing. It's the morality of the man using them that matters.
Yeah, guns are made for killing. It's the morality of the man using them that matters.
Troutman
member
Guns are Mans’ creation…… True. Guns are the “tools” of “Man”
It can become interesting how this came about. One would have to do their research on this, though.
Gunpowder was discovered in China…..?...100’s A.D.? Which was used for fireworks (originally)….? Historians/Gun geeks would know better than I.
Some one came along and reinvented its use, to be used in what we know of today, as firearms. Gunpowder has evolved (slowly) through time as well as the hosts and projectiles that are used for these guns.
Man is complex (way of thinking, anyway), unlike other animals on this earth.
(My own opinion) Man has the knowledge to do what an animal cannot…..”Reason”.
Yes, Man kills (like other animals), not only for his own selflessness (whatever that might be), but for food, clothing (animal fur), and protection against his comrades (other animals), as well, for his own preservation (protection against hostilities). Just like other animals.
Whether directly, doing it oneself or indirectly, by someone else doing it for him, that is, when one buys meat in a supermarket, leather shoes, furs and such. Yes, the latter can be taken by other means, than “the gun”, like trapping (traps), slaughter-houses (killing by use of Mans’ other creations).
For some reason, firearms are always targeted as “made for killing”. I guess, its better, than blaming “Man”, itself.
Did you know potassium nitrate is used in gunpowder (black powder)? I didn’t know this! Till, I was “thinking” about it. Guess, one needs a PHD to know this? I don’t have one of those. I’m lucky I can read and write. Potassium nitrate is used in other things, which one may take for granted. Like that tree stomp remover (I didn’t know this either. Good thing, that things you buy have warning labels and ingredients listed) one bought at home depot, to stop tripping over it
Home Depot (Home of the do it yourselfer), among other home improvement outlets, has other interesting things as well. Plumbers’ pipes, mouse traps, drain cleaners, various lines of drill bits, wires of all kind, as well as that black powder. It’s that black powder, that’s sounds dangerous, Ha! These other things “can” be just as dangerous or more. When there is a unity that develops.
Construction people have a term (don’t know what that is either) to fix things, with material they don’t have on hand with objects (material) that was designed for a different purpose in mind. I have seen this done, what ingenious people they are.
I just wonder (thinking), just like that person(s), in china with the discovery of gun powder. If these things (listed above) can be used in the same context as how the gun is? Or, a more effective tool? For whatever, “Man” can be creative enough to think of?
The “gun” is on the lower level of the “made for killing” anthology, to other things that can/could be bought, thought of, created by “Man” for “made for killing”. Controlling the firearms he has made, is the answer? Or would controlling man himself, be it?
For Man… he is “made for killing”, though the use of his own antimony, and the use of his mind. For He is…… among other things, made for killing (if wanted be).
Only “reasoning” will be his guiding light.
It can become interesting how this came about. One would have to do their research on this, though.
Gunpowder was discovered in China…..?...100’s A.D.? Which was used for fireworks (originally)….? Historians/Gun geeks would know better than I.
Some one came along and reinvented its use, to be used in what we know of today, as firearms. Gunpowder has evolved (slowly) through time as well as the hosts and projectiles that are used for these guns.
Man is complex (way of thinking, anyway), unlike other animals on this earth.
(My own opinion) Man has the knowledge to do what an animal cannot…..”Reason”.
Yes, Man kills (like other animals), not only for his own selflessness (whatever that might be), but for food, clothing (animal fur), and protection against his comrades (other animals), as well, for his own preservation (protection against hostilities). Just like other animals.
Whether directly, doing it oneself or indirectly, by someone else doing it for him, that is, when one buys meat in a supermarket, leather shoes, furs and such. Yes, the latter can be taken by other means, than “the gun”, like trapping (traps), slaughter-houses (killing by use of Mans’ other creations).
For some reason, firearms are always targeted as “made for killing”. I guess, its better, than blaming “Man”, itself.
Did you know potassium nitrate is used in gunpowder (black powder)? I didn’t know this! Till, I was “thinking” about it. Guess, one needs a PHD to know this? I don’t have one of those. I’m lucky I can read and write. Potassium nitrate is used in other things, which one may take for granted. Like that tree stomp remover (I didn’t know this either. Good thing, that things you buy have warning labels and ingredients listed) one bought at home depot, to stop tripping over it
Home Depot (Home of the do it yourselfer), among other home improvement outlets, has other interesting things as well. Plumbers’ pipes, mouse traps, drain cleaners, various lines of drill bits, wires of all kind, as well as that black powder. It’s that black powder, that’s sounds dangerous, Ha! These other things “can” be just as dangerous or more. When there is a unity that develops.
Construction people have a term (don’t know what that is either) to fix things, with material they don’t have on hand with objects (material) that was designed for a different purpose in mind. I have seen this done, what ingenious people they are.
I just wonder (thinking), just like that person(s), in china with the discovery of gun powder. If these things (listed above) can be used in the same context as how the gun is? Or, a more effective tool? For whatever, “Man” can be creative enough to think of?
The “gun” is on the lower level of the “made for killing” anthology, to other things that can/could be bought, thought of, created by “Man” for “made for killing”. Controlling the firearms he has made, is the answer? Or would controlling man himself, be it?
For Man… he is “made for killing”, though the use of his own antimony, and the use of his mind. For He is…… among other things, made for killing (if wanted be).
Only “reasoning” will be his guiding light.
hankdatank1362
Member
Man, I thought Justin would have nixed this thread a long time ago. Kudos to him for letting it run.
But alas, the troll has retreated under the bridge will his billy goats.
ArfinGreebly, you made one of the most eloquent arguments I have ever read. My compliments.
But alas, the troll has retreated under the bridge will his billy goats.
ArfinGreebly, you made one of the most eloquent arguments I have ever read. My compliments.
Que
Member
READ THIS, PLEASE, ONE AND ALL!
You all jumped on the band wagon to shoot me down...
I know this is a pro-gun forum, and my intention was not to offend anyone at all in anyway. I am doing research for a topic... that topic is the question I posted earlier.
The topic is "Analyse the effect of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons."
The stats I saw on a site, and yes I should of referenced them.
I like weapons, and I really do not have any problems with them... my problems lies in the weapons trafficking... and according to MORI, one in three people are affected by gun crime (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/controlarms.shtml)
It is this issue that caused me to state about global enforcement, it is not to remove your rights to carry weapons, and I apologise if that impression was made. I do believe that the current legislation is sufficient, and I do know that USA has lead the way on control and legislation... like in most areas.
Here in UK, there have been many people killed recently by an influx of illegal weapons, and there is not enough being done globally, to curb this issue. I think that most will agree, and it is this illicit dealing that gives legitimate gun owners a bad name...and they need to be dealt with... and I am also sure you are very aware of the irresponsible legitimate owners that shoot at and kill neighbours dogs for no reason, or threaten people with them... (this is my own opinion and no, I have no sources on this at all).
You all gave good answers... and I really am not against weapons or anyone owning one... I am against the illegal trade in them, and that there is not enough being done about it.
If any has genuine stats (gunfacts.info and bradycampaign.org are not good enough - need a government site or DOJ site or something similar) regarding the illegal trade or weapons trafficking or any ideas, please feel free to voice your opinions.
You are all a good bunch of people, thank you all for your thoughts... and contrary to general opinion, I did read much of what was written, and I did present my facts in bad way, and I didnt not give sources, and I should have done that, it was a poor presentation of argument.
I did not and never did run away... I had work to do, and I still do, which is why I have not been here, and why I didnt go into depth to refute or agree with arguments and give sources. I have deadlines to meet
I hope that this is all resolved and cleared up now... we can all get along it would be good if we could...
BTW...
1/. Which is the more powerful .44 automag or .45?
2/. What guns do you all own?
I had a simple CZ 75. Its not the one I really wanted, but it worked... wanted either heckler koch or sig sauer, and a .44 but seeinf as I am UK I can not have any.
EDIT: Please see this post - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3164840
You all jumped on the band wagon to shoot me down...
I know this is a pro-gun forum, and my intention was not to offend anyone at all in anyway. I am doing research for a topic... that topic is the question I posted earlier.
The topic is "Analyse the effect of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons."
The stats I saw on a site, and yes I should of referenced them.
I like weapons, and I really do not have any problems with them... my problems lies in the weapons trafficking... and according to MORI, one in three people are affected by gun crime (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/controlarms.shtml)
It is this issue that caused me to state about global enforcement, it is not to remove your rights to carry weapons, and I apologise if that impression was made. I do believe that the current legislation is sufficient, and I do know that USA has lead the way on control and legislation... like in most areas.
Here in UK, there have been many people killed recently by an influx of illegal weapons, and there is not enough being done globally, to curb this issue. I think that most will agree, and it is this illicit dealing that gives legitimate gun owners a bad name...and they need to be dealt with... and I am also sure you are very aware of the irresponsible legitimate owners that shoot at and kill neighbours dogs for no reason, or threaten people with them... (this is my own opinion and no, I have no sources on this at all).
You all gave good answers... and I really am not against weapons or anyone owning one... I am against the illegal trade in them, and that there is not enough being done about it.
If any has genuine stats (gunfacts.info and bradycampaign.org are not good enough - need a government site or DOJ site or something similar) regarding the illegal trade or weapons trafficking or any ideas, please feel free to voice your opinions.
You are all a good bunch of people, thank you all for your thoughts... and contrary to general opinion, I did read much of what was written, and I did present my facts in bad way, and I didnt not give sources, and I should have done that, it was a poor presentation of argument.
I did not and never did run away... I had work to do, and I still do, which is why I have not been here, and why I didnt go into depth to refute or agree with arguments and give sources. I have deadlines to meet
I hope that this is all resolved and cleared up now... we can all get along
it would be good if we could...BTW...
1/. Which is the more powerful .44 automag or .45?
2/. What guns do you all own?
I had a simple CZ 75. Its not the one I really wanted, but it worked... wanted either heckler koch or sig sauer, and a .44 but seeinf as I am UK I can not have any.
EDIT: Please see this post - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3164840
Last edited:
Mandirigma
Member
Que, I was going to send you a PM but it seems you have that disabled.
If your intention really is to do research. Start a new thread with everything you listed. As far as I know (haven't searched) there haven't been any threads about "the effect of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons" Be plain, use clear semantics.
You will find that people on this board will be more than willing to jump on a bandwagon to help you find the information you requested.
I am personally of the opinion that no matter how much you control or legislate something there will always be a demand for it. So long as there are demands and a way to make money on it, there will always be ways to illegally aquire something. Once you get into this aspect of it then it just becomes a cycle of violence.
If your intention really is to do research. Start a new thread with everything you listed. As far as I know (haven't searched) there haven't been any threads about "the effect of national and international efforts to curb the illegal trade in weapons" Be plain, use clear semantics.
You will find that people on this board will be more than willing to jump on a bandwagon to help you find the information you requested.
I am personally of the opinion that no matter how much you control or legislate something there will always be a demand for it. So long as there are demands and a way to make money on it, there will always be ways to illegally aquire something. Once you get into this aspect of it then it just becomes a cycle of violence.
Que
Member
PMs
They are turned on - I didnt realise they were off.
EDIT: Please see this post http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3164840
They are turned on - I didnt realise they were off.
EDIT: Please see this post http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3164840
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
re:
Que...We understand a little better now, and accept your explanation.
If you're doing research, the first thing to do is separate the wheat from the chaff. The antis' habit thus far has been to spin many of the facts and statistics to make the results lean in their direction. For instance...when factoring gun-related deaths of "children" into the equation...they usually include young men up to the age of 24...and they include gang and drug turf shootings and acts of war into their findings. While such things are tragic...especially when someone not involved in the affair is caught in the wrong place...this factor is clearly the result of illegal activities and should be addressed as a separate argument instead of a blanket to "prove" that guns are killing children by the thousands annually. Make the argument apples to apples, and the numbers drop sharply. As the old saying goes, "There are liars...damn liars...and statisticians." Given enough time an opportunity, a sharp accountant can balance the books in whatever bias that he chooses. The same can be said of statistics and the people who present them.
The second thing that we have to get away from is the term "Gun Crime" and "Gun Violence." It's misleading. Guns can't commit crime, and repeating those phrases only serve to inflame the uninformed. More spin. Crime is crime. The tool used for the act is incidental. Whether your carotid artery is severed by a kitchen knife or a bullet is of no consequence. You bleed out just as fast. ANother propagandist axiom was coined by Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels: (sic) "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth."
Seek the truth, and tell the truth. Seek out the facts and report the facts accurately.
The final point is that...illegal arms trade is going to go on, no matter what laws are enacted. It will continue in the Sudan and it will continue in Chicago and it will continue in small, rural farming communities everywhere. As long as there are people, there will be violent people who would prey on their fellow man. Homo Homilia Lupus. (Man is a wolf to man) And as long as there are such people, decent people will arm themselves for self protection against these predators. (Actually, Wolves are much more honorable than some of the cretins that I've seen, so that Latin phrase is one that they don't deserve.)
It's simply unnatural not to be armed. Look to nature for the truth in that statement. Weapons are everywhere you look. Even the unoffensive Cottontail rabbit will fight given no other alternative. He's run a fox ragged through the brambles...turn at the last second...and kick his eyes out with the long, sharp toenails provided by nature for such things. Those rangy powerful legs aren't just for launching his rocket-propelled getaways. They also serve as a weapon mount.
Simply, being armed is a natural and desireable state in which to exist. Armed and prepared to fend off an attack doesn't leave you at the mercy of the wolf, nor at the discretion of officers responding to a 911 call that they may arrive at too late to do you any good.
Que...We understand a little better now, and accept your explanation.
If you're doing research, the first thing to do is separate the wheat from the chaff. The antis' habit thus far has been to spin many of the facts and statistics to make the results lean in their direction. For instance...when factoring gun-related deaths of "children" into the equation...they usually include young men up to the age of 24...and they include gang and drug turf shootings and acts of war into their findings. While such things are tragic...especially when someone not involved in the affair is caught in the wrong place...this factor is clearly the result of illegal activities and should be addressed as a separate argument instead of a blanket to "prove" that guns are killing children by the thousands annually. Make the argument apples to apples, and the numbers drop sharply. As the old saying goes, "There are liars...damn liars...and statisticians." Given enough time an opportunity, a sharp accountant can balance the books in whatever bias that he chooses. The same can be said of statistics and the people who present them.
The second thing that we have to get away from is the term "Gun Crime" and "Gun Violence." It's misleading. Guns can't commit crime, and repeating those phrases only serve to inflame the uninformed. More spin. Crime is crime. The tool used for the act is incidental. Whether your carotid artery is severed by a kitchen knife or a bullet is of no consequence. You bleed out just as fast. ANother propagandist axiom was coined by Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels: (sic) "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth."
Seek the truth, and tell the truth. Seek out the facts and report the facts accurately.
The final point is that...illegal arms trade is going to go on, no matter what laws are enacted. It will continue in the Sudan and it will continue in Chicago and it will continue in small, rural farming communities everywhere. As long as there are people, there will be violent people who would prey on their fellow man. Homo Homilia Lupus. (Man is a wolf to man) And as long as there are such people, decent people will arm themselves for self protection against these predators. (Actually, Wolves are much more honorable than some of the cretins that I've seen, so that Latin phrase is one that they don't deserve.)
It's simply unnatural not to be armed. Look to nature for the truth in that statement. Weapons are everywhere you look. Even the unoffensive Cottontail rabbit will fight given no other alternative. He's run a fox ragged through the brambles...turn at the last second...and kick his eyes out with the long, sharp toenails provided by nature for such things. Those rangy powerful legs aren't just for launching his rocket-propelled getaways. They also serve as a weapon mount.
Simply, being armed is a natural and desireable state in which to exist. Armed and prepared to fend off an attack doesn't leave you at the mercy of the wolf, nor at the discretion of officers responding to a 911 call that they may arrive at too late to do you any good.
Que
Member
Homo Homilia Lupus. (Man is a wolf to man)
Hi, you wrote... Homo Homilia Lupus. (Man is a wolf to man).
Where did you get this please, it sounds good would liek to put it in what I am doing.
Hi, you wrote... Homo Homilia Lupus. (Man is a wolf to man).
Where did you get this please, it sounds good would liek to put it in what I am doing.
- Status
