[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
A good illustration, perhaps, is that it has been demonstrated that when physically and psychologically normal cats are kept for a time in the company of cats having some profound mental disturbance – I forget what; it may have been that the disturbance was experimentally caused by drugs or brain surgery – the normal cats adopt the bizarre behavior of their new associates.
However, while the behavior may have been the same or similar, both the cause and the prognosis for recovery are completely different in the case of the two sorts of cats in question.
That cat thing is BS, it’s actually from a novel but lots of people quote it as fact. The study was never done.[/quote]
Very hard for you to prove a negative unless you are completely conversant in the field, knowing that you’ve read every study ever done.
I didn’t hear it from people: while the article I read did not give the source, I don’t think, it was from a science article that I’d read. In Scientific American, I believe, but am not completely positive.
Not that that utterly proves that there was such a study, but I really don’t know how you can be sure that because it appeared in a novel, it also never was done in fact.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
You are so full of shit. Back during the war everyone in Britain owned guns. When my parents were children they used to find guns just laying in the streets. My father had a whole collection of handguns he had found. My parents and my grandmother have all told me that.
Back then everyone had guns. And a lot of men were war veterans who had killed someone, so any inhibitions they had about killing had been overcome. But you didn’t see much violent crime because it was a different society and everyone was armed.
[/quote]
And you could not use a gun in self defence due to the law. This has been the case for 80 years. Doesn’t matter how many times I repeat this fact you seem to have trouble getting it through your seriously dense skull.
In the US you can use a gun for self defence. In the UK this has not been allowed in living memory. Therefore the total mindset is different. You cannot compare the situations closely. Tony Blair can be blamed for a huge number of things, this is not one of them.
What are you jibbering on about you dribbling mong? Weapons have been brought into the UK by Eastern block gangs that are looking to carve a niche of the extremely profitable drugs market in the UK. This is not speculation, it is fact. Come on, there are screaming headlines in the Daily Mail about this on a weekly basis, surely you must have put your copy of Meine Kampf down long enough to read them.
Are you seriously that thick? Is there someone who looks after you? Do you have someone typing for you? I seriously worry as to your safety with a computer plugged into the mains? You might dribble into it so much that you electrocute yourself. The guns are brought in illegally.
Listen Mr Hitlerjugend I have repeatedly told you that I don’t read the guardian. I read the sports section online because it has amusing football coverage. As I am in Mexico, the newspaper that I read on a daily basis is A.M. Leon.
I have, repeatedly, but as you seem to struggle with following a chain of thought, here we go for the umpteenth time. You have not been able to claim the use of a gun in self defence since the 30s.
The legislation in 97 mainly affected people who were into competitive target shooting. The biggest issue afterwards was to our Olympic Shooting team. The legislation was a piece of powder puff legislation in reaction to a couple of very high profile but isolated shootings. It was Tony Blair passing some legislation to be seen as doing something.
No, as I have repeatedly stated on this thread, the proposed legislation in the US seems to be pointless. If there is no evidence that the particular group of guns causes more crime then why ban them? In fact, as the weapons in question look more scary than normal, you are probably less likely to have to use them.
Of course it is, it’s like WMD, Climate Change or whatever other flavour of the month. A phrase that the press has jumped on.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
This is very, very interesting to me. Where is the text from that you quoted and is that the whole text?
This was an excerpt from an article entitled The Root of the Evil, from Col. Cooper’s book To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth, which is available from Amazon.
It is interesting to me primarily for two reasons. The first is that it presents a new (to me) view point on this matter. The second is that I share this viewpoint when it comes to religious people. I think it is very difficult to reason with religious or superstitious people because their beliefs are irrational, and I view it as a form of mental disturbance.
So I am naturally a little perturbed to have the same accusation (of possessing a mental disturbance) levelled at me, when I consider myself to be completely devoid of superstition and someone who strives to achieve rational thoughts in all areas.
My first thought, I think naturally was “I’m not a hoplophobe” because I am scared of things like how suddenly a gun can end life, but the analogy with cars and matches caused pause for thought.
I am different in one case from the typical hoplophobe described; my mind can always be changed, IF I’m presented with solid evidence. I need to learn more from both sides, so any more thoughtful replies are gratefully received.
Well, as I (tongue-in-cheekily) said before, your admission that your aversion to weapons stems from fear of them is a positive sign. It means that unlike a true victim of hoplophobia, you are willing to look at your aversion rationally, which I applaud.
Here is an analysis of the phenomenon by Dr. Sarah Thompson, a psychiatrist. She says, “with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term “hoplophobia” to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable, something most anti-gun folks will never admit.”
Cheers.
Thanks for that. I think if my stereotype of gun owners resembled people like you, I wouldn’t have my “fear”.[/quote]
I think a large part of it is that you don’t live in an area where guns are used as everyday tools as well. For instance, if people spent some prolonged time around the rural areas of this country, they would perhaps not view guns as a positive, but at least would be much less anti-gun than before–they would be exposed to people using guns every day, carrying them around, talking about them, without any real crime.
In addition, they would likely come to think of the people in that area with a decidedly more optimistic and less condescending view than those “enlightened souls” who stayed on the coastline and never actually spoke with or been around the people they put down as irrational. It would be granted that the people you encountered would be much more conservative than yourself, but you would likely at least understand their view points much better, and respect them.
I recall watching one show on tv where this chick from an urban city decided to live in a rural area with what she called a “gun nut” for 30 days to gather a better understanding of her opposition. The beginnings were, to say the least, awkward and traumatic for her. At the end of the 30 days though, she said that she while she still thought gun control was a good thing in certain ways, she had softened her stance on gun laws substantially and realized how “normal” the people who used guns really were. She also said she had a lot more understanding about why they felt threatened by legislation, and that she didn’t want them to lose their ability to enjoy their way of life or hobbies.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
A good illustration, perhaps, is that it has been demonstrated that when physically and psychologically normal cats are kept for a time in the company of cats having some profound mental disturbance – I forget what; it may have been that the disturbance was experimentally caused by drugs or brain surgery – the normal cats adopt the bizarre behavior of their new associates.
However, while the behavior may have been the same or similar, both the cause and the prognosis for recovery are completely different in the case of the two sorts of cats in question.
That cat thing is BS, it’s actually from a novel but lots of people quote it as fact. The study was never done.
Very hard for you to prove a negative unless you are completely conversant in the field, knowing that you’ve read every study ever done.
I didn’t hear it from people: while the article I read did not give the source, I don’t think, it was from a science article that I’d read. In Scientific American, I believe, but am not completely positive.
Not that that utterly proves that there was such a study, but I really don’t know how you can be sure that because it appeared in a novel, it also never was done in fact.
[/quote]
Damn, I am having a brain freeze as to the novel that this is from. Seriously this is one of those things that is quoted as fact in papers and whatnot but there is no actual study.
I am google searching like crazy but coming up blank.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
This is very, very interesting to me. Where is the text from that you quoted and is that the whole text?
This was an excerpt from an article entitled The Root of the Evil, from Col. Cooper’s book To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth, which is available from Amazon.
It is interesting to me primarily for two reasons. The first is that it presents a new (to me) view point on this matter. The second is that I share this viewpoint when it comes to religious people. I think it is very difficult to reason with religious or superstitious people because their beliefs are irrational, and I view it as a form of mental disturbance.
So I am naturally a little perturbed to have the same accusation (of possessing a mental disturbance) levelled at me, when I consider myself to be completely devoid of superstition and someone who strives to achieve rational thoughts in all areas.
My first thought, I think naturally was “I’m not a hoplophobe” because I am scared of things like how suddenly a gun can end life, but the analogy with cars and matches caused pause for thought.
I am different in one case from the typical hoplophobe described; my mind can always be changed, IF I’m presented with solid evidence. I need to learn more from both sides, so any more thoughtful replies are gratefully received.
Well, as I (tongue-in-cheekily) said before, your admission that your aversion to weapons stems from fear of them is a positive sign. It means that unlike a true victim of hoplophobia, you are willing to look at your aversion rationally, which I applaud.
Here is an analysis of the phenomenon by Dr. Sarah Thompson, a psychiatrist. She says, “with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term “hoplophobia” to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable, something most anti-gun folks will never admit.”
Cheers.
Thanks for that. I think if my stereotype of gun owners resembled people like you, I wouldn’t have my “fear”.
I think a large part of it is that you don’t live in an area where guns are used as everyday tools as well. For instance, if people spent some prolonged time around the rural areas of this country, they would perhaps not view guns as a positive, but at least would be much less anti-gun than before–they would be exposed to people using guns every day, carrying them around, talking about them, without any real crime.
In addition, they would likely come to think of the people in that area with a decidedly more optimistic and less condescending view than those “enlightened souls” who stayed on the coastline and never actually spoke with or been around the people they put down as irrational. It would be granted that the people you encountered would be much more conservative than yourself, but you would likely at least understand their view points much better, and respect them.
I recall watching one show on tv where this chick from an urban city decided to live in a rural area with what she called a “gun nut” for 30 days to gather a better understanding of her opposition. The beginnings were, to say the least, awkward and traumatic for her. At the end of the 30 days though, she said that she while she still thought gun control was a good thing in certain ways, she had softened her stance on gun laws substantially and realized how “normal” the people who used guns really were. She also said she had a lot more understanding about why they felt threatened by legislation, and that she didn’t want them to lose their ability to enjoy their way of life or hobbies.
Interesting information.[/quote]
sounds like you are talking about 30 days, a show by Morgan Spurlock (sp??) the guy who did supersize me. There were some really good culture clashes in it.
Sorry, I’m from the UK, I live in England. Should have mentioned that I guess!
Sorry in advance to everyone that knows I’m going to ask this for the hundredth time: So, how’s your queen?
mike
Haha, I’m fairly sure I can guess what you want out of me, but you’ll have to try on someone else. I’m very much opposed to the monarchy. I think it should die when the Queen does.
/thread hijack.[/quote]
No, you gave me exactly the answer I was looking for. You just don’t seem to realize it.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
You are so full of shit. Back during the war everyone in Britain owned guns. When my parents were children they used to find guns just laying in the streets. My father had a whole collection of handguns he had found. My parents and my grandmother have all told me that.
Back then everyone had guns. And a lot of men were war veterans who had killed someone, so any inhibitions they had about killing had been overcome. But you didn’t see much violent crime because it was a different society and everyone was armed.
And you could not use a gun in self defence due to the law. This has been the case for 80 years. Doesn’t matter how many times I repeat this fact you seem to have trouble getting it through your seriously dense skull.
In the US you can use a gun for self defence. In the UK this has not been allowed in living memory. Therefore the total mindset is different. You cannot compare the situations closely. Tony Blair can be blamed for a huge number of things, this is not one of them. [/quote]
So you expect us to believe that British gun owners would rather die than use a gun to defend themselves. Oookaaay.
What obviously is not registering with you is the fact that even with the country awash with guns and people who had lots of experience using them there was very little violent crime. Or any other crime for that matter.
[quote]
The increase in gun crime is due to changes in Europe caused by several wars and the break up of the Eastern Bloc.
There you go blame it on someone else. Blaming Britain’s woes on other countries has become the standard cop out. ie Gordon Brown not controlling the money supply is not what caused the UK banking system to melt down, it was entirely the fault of the Yanks.
If what you say is true why hasn’t Switzerland seen a massive increase in gun crimes? They have more guns and they are much closer to the Eastern block than the UK.
What are you jibbering on about you dribbling mong? [/quote]
Didn’t your mother teach you it’s impolite to make fun of peoples disabilities? Besides I had that fixed.
[quote]
Weapons have been brought into the UK by Eastern block gangs that are looking to carve a niche of the extremely profitable drugs market in the UK. [/quote]
Why would they do that? Why that give them an unfair advantage. I do say it is most un British of them. You are right! A proper British gentleman would never do such a thing. It those bloody Easterners. Why hasn’t someone reported them to the proper authorities?
I thought you said that if the government made it illegal to own guns then there would be less guns in the community. Surely the criminals must feel ashamed of themselves that they are using such an underhanded and illegal tactic to gain an unfair advantage. I must say I am absolutely shocked that British criminals would do such a thing.
[quote]
This is not speculation, it is fact. Come on, there are screaming headlines in the Daily Mail about this on a weekly basis, surely you must have put your copy of Meine Kampf down long enough to read them. [/quote]
I must admit the Mein Kampf readings have been taking up most of my time… How did you know about that? Did Just the Facts tell you? Or was it Terrace Lad?
[quote]
This has increased the availability of guns.
How could that happen? I thought the 1997 gun control act made it impossible to buy guns. What happened?
Are you seriously that thick? Is there someone who looks after you? Do you have someone typing for you? I seriously worry as to your safety with a computer plugged into the mains? You might dribble into it so much that you electrocute yourself. The guns are brought in illegally. [/quote]
But if it’s illegal why would they do that? If their intended victims cannot have guns to shoot back them wouldn’t the criminals feel ashamed of themselves. It seems very unfair. The British are the worlds fairest people. Why would British criminals do such a thing? Something doesn’t sound right.
Can you explain why they do this Cock?
[quote]
Coupled with the increasing influence of US culture (people copycating what they see in the US,) you get an increase in gun crime.
Back when my parents were kids not did everyone in the UK have guns but Hollywood gangster movies like Scarface had been quite popular for years.
You Guardianistas really do like to blame the US.
Listen Mr Hitlerjugend I have repeatedly told you that I don’t read the guardian. I read the sports section online because it has amusing football coverage. As I am in Mexico, the newspaper that I read on a daily basis is A.M. Leon. [/quote]
Which British papers did you read?
[quote]
The legislation is a total red herring.
Do tell.
I have, repeatedly, but as you seem to struggle with following a chain of thought, here we go for the umpteenth time. You have not been able to claim the use of a gun in self defence since the 30s.
The legislation in 97 mainly affected people who were into competitive target shooting. The biggest issue afterwards was to our Olympic Shooting team.
The legislation was a piece of powder puff legislation in reaction to a couple of very high profile but isolated shootings. It was Tony Blair passing some legislation to be seen as doing something.
This thread is about the attempt to ban ‘Assault’ weapons in the US. Trying to bring the UK in as a comparison is pointless, there is no reference to compare.
What’s the matter Cock? Are you afraid that someone in the UK may be open minded enough to listen to what the Yanks have to say about gun ownership and make up his own mind?
No, as I have repeatedly stated on this thread, the proposed legislation in the US seems to be pointless. If there is no evidence that the particular group of guns causes more crime then why ban them? In fact, as the weapons in question look more scary than normal, you are probably less likely to have to use them. [/quote]
According to the FBI assault rifles are only used in about %5 of all gun crimes. Which is the exact opposite of what we see in Hollywood movies.
[quote]
The main problem that I can see with Assault weapons is the name. Call the ‘Defence’ weapons or ‘Patriot’ Weapons and half the people that support the band would not be so bothered.
It has become what is known as a “buzzword”.
A buzzword (also fashion word and vogue word) is a vague idiom, usually a neologism, that is common to managerial, technical, administrative, and political work environments.
Although meant to impress the listener with the speaker’s pretense to knowledge, buzzwords render sentences opaque, difficult to understand and question, because the buzzword does not mean what it denominates, yet does mean other things it ought not mean.
[1] George Orwell, in “Politics and the English Language,” wrote that people use buzzwords because they are convenient. It is much easier to copy the words and phrases that someone invented than it is to come up with one’s own.[2]
Buzzwords differ from jargon; the speaker tries to impress the listener with obscure meanings, while jargon (ideally) has a defined technical meaning ? if only to the given specialists; however, the advertising hyperbole written to sell new technologies, ironically, often converts technical (machine) terms into buzzwords, that then are used by the salesman in his selling the technology to the listener.
In the event, mainstream usage of buzzwords, fashion words, and vogue words does register some to the dictionary; however, once in the dictionary, the buzzword’s meaning(s) might no longer correspond with the mainstream and “street” usages.
Of course it is, it’s like WMD, Climate Change or whatever other flavour of the month. A phrase that the press has jumped on. [/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Fear is in fact the root of much of the anti-gun sentiment.
It underscores the importance of being a good representative for firearms ownership. Sometimes education works and I have seen it work personally. It is a good practice to try to respectfully educate naysayers first. If they are still venomous, then feel free to mock them.
Hell, I was scared shitless the first time I pulled a trigger all those years ago.
A liberal is just a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet…
The fact is that automobiles and doctors kill far more people and no one is calling for banning them. The entire gun grabbing debate is just about pathetic neutered nannystaters trying to control the rest of us.
In the grand scheme of things, my life is completely meaningless, so it doesn’t matter at all if I get killed in the process of shooting at some representative of the government trying to take my guns in the name of “following orders” or “public safety.”
The national guard went around taking guns from law abiding citizens in New Orleans in the middle of a riot, for crying out loud. Who wants to live under such tyranny? We’re better off dead than living in fear of a government trying to deny people their right to self-defense.
In the UK and Australia, most gave up their guns without a fight. I sure hope we don’t repeat that here. [/quote]
Surely your not suggesting a “liberal plot” to slowly erode your Constitutional right to own guns… are you?
Wouldn’t that be an awkward parallel…
PROTOCOL No. 1
14. In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism,
I find a new right - to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism.
Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it.
PROTOCOL No. 3
5. All people are chained down to heavy toil by poverty more firmly than ever. They were chained by slavery and serfdom; from these, one way and another, they might free themselves. These could be settled with, but from want they will never get away.
We have included in the Constitution such rights as to the masses appear fictitious and not actual rights. All these so-called “Peoples Rights” can exist only in idea, an idea which can never be realized in practical life…
Republican rights for a poor man are no more than a bitter piece of irony, for the necessity he is under of toiling almost all day gives him no present use of them…
PROTOCOL No. 5
We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the GOYIM,
And our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any GOYIM who oppose us by deed or word…
Capital, if it is to co-operate untrammeled, must be free to establish a monopoly of industry and trade: this is already being put in execution by an unseen hand in all quarters of the world.
This freedom will give political force to those engaged in industry, and that will help to oppress the people. Nowadays it is more important to disarm the peoples than to lead them into war…
PROTOCOL No. 10
WE NAME PRESIDENTS
In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents.
By that time we shall be in a position to disregard forms in carrying through matters for which our impersonal puppet will be responsible.
What do we care if the ranks of those striving for power should be thinned, if there should arise a deadlock from the impossibility of finding presidents, a deadlock which will finally disorganize the country?
In order that our scheme may produce this result we shall arrange elections in favor of such presidents as have in their past some dark, undiscovered stain, some “Panama” or other -
Then they will be trustworthy agents for the accomplishment of our plans out of fear of revelations and from the natural desire of everyone who has attained power, namely, the retention of the privileges, advantages and honor connected with the office of president.
(it is clear that his [Obama’s] political career, from its South Side inception to the audacious run for the White House, was nurtured and enabled by a close-knit network of Chicago Jews.) http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/obama1stjewishpresident121208
PROTOCOL No. 13
4. The part played by the liberals, utopian dreamers, will be finally played out when our government is acknowledged. Till such time they will continue to do us good service…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
I must admit the Mein Kampf readings have been taking up most of my time… How did you know about that? Did Just the Facts tell you? Or was it Terrace Lad?
[/quote]
Did you know the first printing of ‘Mein Kampf’ was published by a Jewish publishing company, Secker and Warburg?
[quote]orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Meine Kampf
The word kampf is masculine. Meine is only used for feminine or plural nouns. Ist das klar? Sehr gut.
Tausend Dank! My german has got way worse since I learned Spanish.
See if you can translate this. Du kanst mich mal mein arse lechen. Verpiss dich, verpiss oich!
See, “arse” is also masculine, therefore “mein” arse-
don´t you pay attention?
And it is written “arsch” by the way.[/quote]
Danke. It has been quite a few years since I read Gothe.
One of the stumbling blocks I had with learning German was keeping track of the gender of various words. One thing I will never understand is why some people will say that English is a harder language to learn when English doesn’t have rules of word gender to remember.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Meine Kampf
The word kampf is masculine. Meine is only used for feminine or plural nouns. Ist das klar? Sehr gut.
Tausend Dank! My german has got way worse since I learned Spanish.
See if you can translate this. Du kanst mich mal mein arse lechen. Verpiss dich, verpiss oich!
See, “arse” is also masculine, therefore “mein” arse-
don´t you pay attention?
And it is written “arsch” by the way.
Danke. It has been quite a few years since I read Gothe.
One of the stumbling blocks I had with learning German was keeping track of the gender of various words. One thing I will never understand is why some people will say that English is a harder language to learn when English doesn’t have rules of word gender to remember. [/quote]
The main issue with learning English is that you have about 4 different sets of overlapping rules depending on the root of the word. This makes verb endings for instance an absolute nightmare.
