Where are you moving? I’m afraid most places in the Western world this point will just be “out of the frying pan and into the fire.”
[quote]We are constantly bombarded with propaganda in the form of educational/awareness campaigns.
Whether it be a true or false cause these campaigns, like the gun, also prove to be a tool. [/quote]
The greater the propaganda, the bigger the lie it conceals. People don’t need ad campaigns to see what is obviously true.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But surely someone telling the truth would stand out and really get the nation behind them. These days with viral and gorilla marketing you could do it pretty cheaply.
No somebody telling the truth wouldn’t stand out. That is what we have been trying to say all along. The truth doesn’t stand out because the people are easily led. They don’t have the critical reasoning skills to be able to work out what is true and what is false (or at least they don’t care enough to use them).
In which case it is even easier to lead them because you don’t even need to be telling the truth. You just need to package and market your message in the right way. So why don’t you?[/quote]
You are so full of it. For years people have been fed a steady stream of distorted information or misinformation. Most of it was presented to them in such a way that it would have a maximum emotional impact. They go for the emotional impact so that people won’t use critical thinking. Because people have been programed to get all emotional about the subject it is very difficult to have a rational discussion and get point of view across to them.
From Hollywood movies to the news there is a massive amount of information that has to be overcome. You yourself are a prime example. We give you factual information all the time but you will still ignore it and argue with us. There are a lot of people in Britain who are as hard headed and closed minded as you are.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I never thought of using my car as a weapon. But if society becomes a dog eat dog world who knows what we will resort to. This is also why I am leaving. I will fight if I have to but I don’t want to live in contention with the world.
Where are you moving? [/quote]
I am moving to a Brazilian island called Florianopolis. South of Brazil.
They have dune sand boarding and surf in warm clear waters.
I visited California last year to research for relocation purposes but could not be by a beach with cold and shark infested waters.
: )
[quote]
The greater the propaganda, the bigger the lie it conceals. [/quote]
Truth. Or at least there is some serious self-interested involved ( i.e. over dependency on the government - which I would rather live in isolation then surrender my independence = freedom ) [quote]
People don’t need ad campaigns to see what is obviously true. [/quote]
Incidentally, the reason I want to move also is because here there is no sense of community. Where there is a communion between people, like you said, they see what is going on.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
For years people have been fed a steady stream of distorted information or misinformation. Most of it was presented to them in such a way that it would have a maximum emotional impact. They go for the emotional impact so that people won’t use critical thinking. Because people have been programed to get all emotional about the subject it is very difficult to have a rational discussion and get point of view across to them.
[/quote]
Blinded by emotion.
So true.
The government in Brazil used Carnival and football to keep the herd ‘happily distracted’ and lulled from all the corruption that was going on.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
If a city was so dangerous that I felt I needed guns in my property just to protect myself then I would have to evaluate whether that was a location where I really wanted to live.
This is very similar to my views on martial arts for self defence. If your lifestyle puts you regularly in situations where you feel you need to dedicate the time needed to be sufficiently good at martial arts to defend yourself on the streets then you really need to re-evaluate your lifestyle.
Wow.
It must be wonderful to be able to change cities of residence so easily or to “re-evaluate your lifestyle” to make it less vulnerable to violence.
All those poor, working-class, inner-city folk in the US should just move! Or just “change their lifestyle!”
What a wonderful (if asinine) suggestion.
Not at all. There are lots of people in the Martial Arts community who talk about training for the streets and how many street fights they have been in.
The question I would ask them is why are they getting in all of these altercations? Typically they are the one instigating the situtions, or they are putting themselves into danger. Walking around with a bling watch in a dark part of town. Getting so drunk they are not in control or aware. Drawing out cash late at night at an isolated ATM. Hanging around with a group that goes looking for trouble. [/quote]
So you know people who study martial arts just so they can be more dangerous bully’s and you know that some of them go around in packs for safety when they are bullying. But despite that you think it would just be terrible if one of their would be victims were to turn the tables on them with a gun.
[quote]
For the second part, I was responding to a direct question and I responded. I would not put MYSELF and MY FAMILY in the situation of living somewhere so dangerous that I felt I needed guns in the house to protect us. Most people in the UK and the US are freely able to move to a different area if they so choose. The vast majority of the US is very safe and comfortable to live in. Increasing the numbers of guns in the most dangerous bits is not going to be the best way to cut violence.[/quote]
Yet you moved your family to Mexico. People in America’s affluent suburbs have more guns than people in the poor inner city areas. It is the rich people in the good areas who can afford them because of all the gun control laws driving up the cost.
[quote]Truth. Or at least there is some serious self-interested involved ( i.e. over dependency on the government - which I would rather live in isolation then surrender my independence = freedom )
People don’t need ad campaigns to see what is obviously true.
Incidentally, the reason I want to move also is because here there is no sense of community. Where there is a communion between people, like you said, they see what is going on.[/quote]
I think I know what you mean. Speaking of propaganda, seen these ads?
[quote]They have dune sand boarding and surf in warm clear waters.
I visited California last year to research for relocation purposes but could not be by a beach with cold and shark infested waters.[/quote]
The water’s only cold November through August. There are a lot of sharks in NOrCal, but the surf is a ton better up there, Santa Cruz especially. Everyone from LA county who likes to surf moves up there.
Does Florianopolis work during the summer down there? I’d think all of the north Atlantic storms would get blocked. Winter looks pretty awesome:
http://wannasurf.com/spot/South_America/Brazil/Florianopolis/Riozinho/photo/index.html?wdaction=lib.WDPagePhoto.show&page=1
Those guys are all wearing wetsuits though. Weird that Brazil’s never produced a solid WCT performer.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
phaethon wrote:
No that doesn’t make it easier. It makes it 100x harder. Because the people saying gun control is awesome are more numerous and louder than those saying gun control is stupid.
They can happily spend 10 million on campaigning against gun ownership. I can spend maybe 5k on supporting gun ownership.
Now if gun ownership was handled at the local level I would be able to make a difference. But it isn’t.
This is a very good and valid point.
I noticed for instance there is a campaign for every thing in Britain, including the ‘girlfriend hiding the boyfriend gun’ campaign.
We are constantly bombarded with propaganda in the form of educational/awareness campaigns.
Whether it be a true or false cause these campaigns, like the gun, also prove to be a tool.
A weapon to ‘shoot’ the public with the desired message of whoever has got the money to campaign more impressively.
[/quote]
I see you too have noticed that the British have a penchant for coming up with silly campaigns and acting like they are going to solve anything.
What is really sad about the British is they too stupid to recognize what the girlfriends holding guns for their boyfriends campaign shows why gun control is very unfair and doesn’t work. A criminal does not need to have a gun on their person for an extended period of time in order to be able to use it for committing crime. They can pick it up for a couple of minutes, execute a plan, then drop it off with someone and they are clean if they get stopped by the police.
If you are a person who has a threat against your life because you did something like filed a complaint with the police or testified in court you don’t have that ability to pick and choose when you need to be armed. You need to be able to protect yourself at all times to be able to go out and live your life. The law does not favour a person in that position, the law favors a criminal who has accomplaces.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes it is a gun but it wasn’t loaded. It was for some photos at work. I actually used to target shoot in competition when I was a kid and clay pigeon shoot at the weekends. I fully understand the enjoyment of shooting and have no problem with sensible and controlled gun ownership. I just don’t equate liberty to guns in the same way as Sifu does.
Since you are acquainted with fire arms would you change your position if the situation here got worse? It wasn’t long ago two young women went to prison for hiding their boyfriends guns - there is a campaign on this issue at this moment as the problem escalates.
Also consider that point Sifu made about being uncomfortable having crazy thoughts on how to use your fire arm, which I think I actually would - but ONLY because I have a deep respect for life. Do you think most would uphold this position or would guns be a tool for dealing with life as we are being constantly devalued such as a nations currency and not a people?
As I have stated a few times, I have no issue with people having firearms for sports purposes or because they are farmers that need to control vermin population or whatever. I do however support the law that people should not own firearms for self defense. I believe that this creates an environment and attitude that I don’t want for the UK. I think that there are plenty of ways to combat crime in the UK that do not lead us to arming the citizens.
You have some serious issues if you think recreation is more important than peoples lives. The right to self defense is an essential liberty. That means it is far more important than sport and leisure activities. Your priorities are insane.
The environment that lunatics like you have created in the UK is an environment of increasing lawlessness and violence. When Gary Newlove was fataly assaulted by the youth gang that was getting drunk in front of his house his horrified wife and daughters could do nothing other than helplessly stand there and watch him get murdered. How can you defend the dangerous environment that has been created there?
Britain is not so different from America as you like to pretend. What works here would work there. What causes problems here also causes problems there. The most dangerous cities in America also have the strictest gun control laws. Gun control has been a disaster here and it is a disaster there.
Your last statement shows your liberal mentality of making people reliant on the governmet. No one has here has suggested arming people. All any of us have suggested is allowing people to arm themselves.
I do think that the situation in the US is different due to the fact that there is a long standing tradition of gun ownership. I can understand why someone living in the arse end of nowhere might feel a need to own a gun. Gun ownership within cities however just seems contrary to the kind of environment that I would want to live in and raise a family. If a city was so dangerous that I felt I needed guns in my property just to protect myself then I would have to evaluate whether that was a location where I really wanted to live.
You are living in a fantasy world. I live in a city where things would be a lot worse if people didn’t have guns to defend their homes with. The police are over burdened and understaffed. Even under idea conditions the police have a limited ability to defend people. The time it takes for the police to drive somewhere is more than enough to break into someones house, kill them and escape. Therefore it makes a lot of sense that people should be able to defend themselves, it keeps a lid on crime.
Speaking of living environment don’t you live in Mexico city? Over here in America we don’t consider Mexico city to be a peaceful, safe environment. I certainly would not want to raise a family down there.
This is very similar to my views on martial arts for self defence. If your lifestyle puts you regularly in situations where you feel you need to dedicate the time needed to be sufficiently good at martial arts to defend yourself on the streets then you really need to re-evaluate your lifestyle. Obviously there are jobs that put you into situations like this (LEO, correctional officer, armed forces etc) but that is different.
You are absolutely clueless. A self defense situation could force itself upon anyone, anywhere, at anytime. If your martial arts teachers don’t know enough about self defense to teach that simple fact of life you should find a different teacher who knows what they are doing. Because it is quite obvious that the ones you have trained with haven’t taught you the first thing about self defense.
This does not mean that it is not worth taking a course and learning about awareness avoiding dangerous situations, it just means that martial arts training for me is about doing something I enjoy.
[/quote]
Sifu you are totally missing the point on my self defence comments. I would put my trainers up against anyone you have trained with in a sports setting given that they are multiple time Mundial Gold Medalists and UFC champions. I train a sport because I enjoy it but I am very realistic about the fact that I am training a sport.
Self defence is mostly about avoiding or de-escalating the situation, not about learning lots of techniques.
The majority of people who I have met that obsess about training things that are ‘street applicable’ are totally deluded, dumb arses or both. That is not to say that there are not self defence trainers that are highly skilled and worth training with. It is just that they are in the minority.
The reason that the cases you are able to pull up of people being murdered are so shocking is because they are so rare. The risk is very small relative to the risks we take doing things like getting in a car.
And for the record I don’t live in D.F. That is a concious decision on my part. I could earn a lot more than I do living here in Guanajuato State however I consider that the quality of life that I am able to give my family here is much higher. One of the considerations for that is the levels of violence in D.F.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
In which case it is even easier to lead them because you don’t even need to be telling the truth. You just need to package and market your message in the right way. So why don’t you?
No that doesn’t make it easier. It makes it 100x harder. Because the people saying gun control is awesome are more numerous and louder than those saying gun control is stupid.
They can happily spend 10 million on campaigning against gun ownership. I can spend maybe 5k on supporting gun ownership.
Now if gun ownership was handled at the local level I would be able to make a difference. But it isn’t.[/quote]
Who is this ‘they’? There are no campaigns against gun ownership in the UK because it is a non-issue. Should you want to get your message out around this then it would be heard loud and clear due to the fact that there are no counter messages. The cost of reaching the masses is lower than ever. Start a facebook group. Stick some entertaining viral vids on youtube and away you go. A couple of big brother contestents ready to talk about what you want and you have national coverage.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I also came across this bit of information.
http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Police_Memorial_Trust/NPM.htm
Also present was Anthony Rae, founder and director of the Police Roll of Honour Trust, which has provided, on behalf of the Police Memorial Trust, the book containing the inscribed Roll of Honour of names of police officers killed in their hazardous duty. This book, which is behind the glass panel in the memorial, is the product of 25 years research and starts with an unknown constable killed in 1680. There are nearly 1,600 names recorded, of those officers unlawfully killed while in the execution of their duty, or in the course of effecting an arrest or the performance of acts of gallantry or other hazardous duty, taken from the 4,000 names on the National Police Officers Roll of Honour of officers who have died in the line of duty.
So 1,600 deaths in over 300 years. I would bet that stacks up pretty well against a number of career options. I would also bet that the death rate would increase if they were all armed.
You are always trying to minimize things aren’t you. If 1600 out of 4000 officers who have died in the line of duty have had their names recorded in a book, that does not mean that only 1600 of the 4000 who have died in the line of duty have died. It means that 4000 have died and only 1600 have been recorded
Also one minute you are saying that the public needs to be armed to protect them from the government. Now you are saying the government officials need to be armed to protect them from the public.
Again you are trying to twist and misrepresent my point of view. Just because I feel that in a democracy the people should be able to arm themselves so that they can have the ultimate means of control available, should it become neccessary. That is in no way contradicted by my view that the police should have the ability to defend themselves and the civilians they are supposed to protect.
[/quote]
You need to go back and read your source material again. There were 4,000 officers killed in the line of duty. This could be due to accidental death or due to unlawful killing. Of those 4,000, 1,600 were unlawfully killed.
Unlawful killing would include those that died due to workplace negligence incidentally. So say the brakes fail on a police car and it can be shown that the mechanic was criminally negligent, that would be included in the figures. Having a gun wouldn’t really help that too much.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people perceive the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.
Which is it?
Can we please stop the thread until Cockney catches up? If you can’t understand what they are saying then you lack critical reasoning skills.
Cockney is what the British call a “tosser” If we stopped every thread and waited for him to stop tossing and catch up we would never get anywhere.
A hint: It can be both.
Cockney Blue wrote:
No it doesn’t it makes it very easy. You hire a publicist and ensure that your message is in the media.
Oh right so I can just hire a publicist who will make sure that my message is heard on prime time tv?
This gives insight into Cock’s thinking. He doesn’t believe in people doing anything for themselves they must have someone else to do it for them and if they can’t afford it fuck em.
The media in Britain is very biased. Try writing into the comments section of a British newpaper sometime and you will see what I mean. They censor heavliy. Other opinions do not easily get heard over there.
Very grown up Sifu. Name calling is all you can come up with?
You got me there. I’m sorry I made fun of your hobby.
I see it more as a calling than a hobby.
Ah yes the call.
If you truly think that you have an important message then yes, the way to get that message out is to hire some sort of publicist.
With the vast volume of negative and distorted news coverage it would cost a fortune to do what you are suggesting. Almost every TV owner in the country has to pay the BBC tax. Al beeb has billions to work with.
But surely someone telling the truth would stand out and really get the nation behind them. These days with viral and gorilla marketing you could do it pretty cheaply.
There always is the possibility that the truth will win in the end. However in Britain the truth has a serious uphill battle. The British have been so heavily indoctrinated to the point that they just shut out information that goes against their programming. You are a great example of what has to be overcome.
The things that I have the skills to do well, I do myself. When I am outside my area of expertise I call in an expert. The whole global economy is based on this simple concept. Even you Sifu need someone to make the tin foil for your helmet.
Ha Ha very funny. I would never trust someone else to do such a mission critical job for me.
Fair enough, you wouldn’t want it to slip so the mind control rays could get in.
Exactly. [/quote]
Whereas in the US, one can just switch on Fox News and be told what to believe. It is a far more straightforward system because it is available 24/7 in nice little soundbite segments.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But surely someone telling the truth would stand out and really get the nation behind them. These days with viral and gorilla marketing you could do it pretty cheaply.
No somebody telling the truth wouldn’t stand out. That is what we have been trying to say all along. The truth doesn’t stand out because the people are easily led. They don’t have the critical reasoning skills to be able to work out what is true and what is false (or at least they don’t care enough to use them).
In which case it is even easier to lead them because you don’t even need to be telling the truth. You just need to package and market your message in the right way. So why don’t you?
You are so full of it. For years people have been fed a steady stream of distorted information or misinformation. Most of it was presented to them in such a way that it would have a maximum emotional impact. They go for the emotional impact so that people won’t use critical thinking. Because people have been programed to get all emotional about the subject it is very difficult to have a rational discussion and get point of view across to them.
From Hollywood movies to the news there is a massive amount of information that has to be overcome. You yourself are a prime example. We give you factual information all the time but you will still ignore it and argue with us. There are a lot of people in Britain who are as hard headed and closed minded as you are. [/quote]
Sifu, over and over again I have shown that the ‘facts’ that you post are total rubbish. You make sweeping generalisations, you have no real knowledge of history or the political system in either the UK or the US and you base your world view off what your granny told you when you were a kid.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
phaethon wrote:
No that doesn’t make it easier. It makes it 100x harder. Because the people saying gun control is awesome are more numerous and louder than those saying gun control is stupid.
They can happily spend 10 million on campaigning against gun ownership. I can spend maybe 5k on supporting gun ownership.
Now if gun ownership was handled at the local level I would be able to make a difference. But it isn’t.
This is a very good and valid point.
I noticed for instance there is a campaign for every thing in Britain, including the ‘girlfriend hiding the boyfriend gun’ campaign.
We are constantly bombarded with propaganda in the form of educational/awareness campaigns.
Whether it be a true or false cause these campaigns, like the gun, also prove to be a tool.
A weapon to ‘shoot’ the public with the desired message of whoever has got the money to campaign more impressively.
I see you too have noticed that the British have a penchant for coming up with silly campaigns and acting like they are going to solve anything.
What is really sad about the British is they too stupid to recognize what the girlfriends holding guns for their boyfriends campaign shows why gun control is very unfair and doesn’t work. A criminal does not need to have a gun on their person for an extended period of time in order to be able to use it for committing crime. They can pick it up for a couple of minutes, execute a plan, then drop it off with someone and they are clean if they get stopped by the police.
If you are a person who has a threat against your life because you did something like filed a complaint with the police or testified in court you don’t have that ability to pick and choose when you need to be armed. You need to be able to protect yourself at all times to be able to go out and live your life. The law does not favour a person in that position, the law favors a criminal who has accomplaces. [/quote]
Yes of course, that only happens in Britain. You would never see that in the US…
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Who is this ‘they’?
[/quote]
The people who think gun control is awesome. I can’t think of any UK politicians who support less firearm restrictions.
I can’t think of many figures the UK media who support greater firearm ownership.
Can’t think of any celeb.
Can’t think of any teacher (Well I do realise I only know a couple but most seem against guns).
Yet I can think of UK politicians who are against gun ownership.
I can think of UK media figures who are against gun ownership.
I can think of UK teachers who are against gun ownership.
I can think of plenty of English MMA & Bodybuilders who are against gun ownership.
And I can think of plenty of UK celebs who are against gun ownership.
The debate in the US is ‘intense’ because there are plenty of politicians, media figures, teachers and even the odd celeb who support gun ownership.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Most people in the UK and the US are freely able to move to a different area if they so choose. The vast majority of the US is very safe and comfortable to live in. Increasing the numbers of guns in the most dangerous bits is not going to be the best way to cut violence.
Ok, well since “most” and “majority” mean more than 50&, you may be correct.
But tell me, what should those who CAN’T afford to, or otherwise can’t, move to a “nicer” area, do?
What is your solution for them? Or are they “expendable?” [/quote]
You are looking at this the wrong way round. What I said was that I wouldn’t choose to live somewhere where I felt I needed a gun to protect my family. And the solution to inner city violence is hardly increasing the number of guns. New York for instance managed to significantly drop the crime rate whilst at the same time tightening gun control.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Who is this ‘they’?
The people who think gun control is awesome. I can’t think of any UK politicians who support less firearm restrictions.
I can’t think of many figures the UK media who support greater firearm ownership.
Can’t think of any celeb.
Can’t think of any teacher (Well I do realise I only know a couple but most seem against guns).
Yet I can think of UK politicians who are against gun ownership.
I can think of UK media figures who are against gun ownership.
I can think of UK teachers who are against gun ownership.
I can think of plenty of English MMA & Bodybuilders who are against gun ownership.
And I can think of plenty of UK celebs who are against gun ownership.
The debate in the US is ‘intense’ because there are plenty of politicians, media figures, teachers and even the odd celeb who support gun ownership.[/quote]
Can you please post some links to where these UK public figures have been making public comments against gun ownership?
Sifu just do what i did and stop arguing with people over the internet like Cockney.
Rather like talking to wall really.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I am moving to a Brazilian island called Florianopolis. South of Brazil.
They have dune sand boarding and surf in warm clear waters.
I visited California last year to research for relocation purposes but could not be by a beach with cold and shark infested waters.
: )
[/quote]
Sigh so JEALOUS !
Omgawd lol sunny island clear water … sigh
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
I am moving to a Brazilian island called Florianopolis. South of Brazil.
They have dune sand boarding and surf in warm clear waters.
I visited California last year to research for relocation purposes but could not be by a beach with cold and shark infested waters.
: )
Sigh so JEALOUS !
Omgawd lol sunny island clear water … sigh[/quote]
I just heard on the BBC news that the congestion charge is going up to 10 GBP.
( I have at least three years to go before I move - I am catching both Olympics, off course )
!#sigh#!
: (