Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   gun control
derwood
Member (Idle past 1982 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 2 of 72 (32961)
02-23-2003 5:58 PM


Machismo of the gun
I have found that, not always, but quite often, gun fanatics are moral cowards.
The kind of people that have a "My Only President is Charleton Heston" bumper stickers, but wouldn't dream of actually fighting in combat.
The type thast feel that in order to be 'a man' you have to kill an animal with a gun, but wimper with fright when confronted with bodily harm.
I've often considered gun lovers to be emasculated wannabes.
Now, I am not against gun ownership at all - I own some, and love shooting. Nor am I against hunting per se, providing it is not just to prove your 'manliness.' I, however, see no need to validate my masculinity by killing little animals or having an NRA sticker in my window.
What I am against is the silly propagandistic tripe spewn by the gun lobby and its followers, and the attitudes of those that I allude to above.
Can't do it with your hands? Get a gun! Instant machismo for the cowardly!

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1982 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 25 of 72 (33452)
02-28-2003 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jdean33442
02-27-2003 1:58 AM


"Why don't you move to the UK and stop trying to destroy core American values"
Yeah!
Those core values being that we have a right to shoot people for taking our parking spots!
We have a right to want to engage in shoot-outs in the street!
We have a right to be able to brandish firearms when we argue with out neighbors!
And, most importantly, we have the right of the weak and ineffectual to inflict their will upon others!
THAT is the American way!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jdean33442, posted 02-27-2003 1:58 AM jdean33442 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jdean33442, posted 03-03-2003 2:27 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1982 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 26 of 72 (33454)
02-28-2003 3:32 PM


statistics, lies, and damn lies
WJ already hit on this, but I cannot resist:
"The US population is 90+ million greater than Australia's. Similar if you exclude math from the equation I guess. What is the homicide by boomerang or poisoned tip blow dart statistics there?"
Conservatives seem to have a VERY hard time either understanding math or using it in anhonest way.
I have heard right wingers form Rush to George Will conflate rates with absolute numbers (Will being a Harvard grad, well....).
A typical misuse of numbers is something like this:
Conservative: There is a clear connection between prayer in school and the amount of crime committed in this country - Look! Back before the Supreme Court banned it in 1962, there were only X-number of murders in the country. Today, there are largerX-number! Clearly, this higher amount of murder is because our chidrin can't pray in school!
Rational person: Well, for one thing, the Court did not ban prayer in school in 1962. It banned administration-led prayer, because it amoiunts to coercion. As of 1962, many individual states had already banned such activities, starting with Minnesota in 1910. Does Minnesota demontrate the largest crime rate in the country? No.
But back to the math.
Yes, there are more murders today than in 1961. But there are lots more people, too. Indeed - when we look at the murder RATE, we see that it is about the same.
Conservative: No, wait, I mean. Libral! Can't you see - the guy is a Liberal! Don't listen to him! The Court made it illega;l to bew a Christian in public gubment schools! Its the truth! Rush said so!
And it is also true that there are more murders today, so it is also true about the connection between prayer and violence! Even Cal Thomas agrees with this! You cannot deny it!
Rational person:
Okaayyyy...
Lets look at this again:
You said there were X-number of murders pre-1962.
Today there are largerX-number.
You say that this is the result of prayer being removed form the schools.
But the entire population grew by Y-amount since then, so the largerX-number of murders today is proportional to the X-number of murders seen pre-1962.
You see?
Let me put it another way -
If there are 100 people, and 10 of them have red hair, then 10% of them have red hair.
If we have 100,000 people, and 10% of them have red hair, then how many have red hair?
Conservative:
Huh?
Rational person:
What is 10% of 100,000?
*tick tock.... tick tock...
Oh my - well it is 10,000.
Conservative:
So there are more red heads. Just like I said.
Rational person:
More total, yes, but they occur at the same RATE.
It is still 10%, but we have a larger population, so there is a
larger number...
But still the same rate....
Conservative:
Oh, I see....
Two weeks later
Same conservative:
There is adirect connection between the banning of prayer in 1962 and the amount of murder in this country......

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 03-03-2003 4:47 AM derwood has replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 03-03-2003 8:43 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1982 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 28 of 72 (33532)
03-03-2003 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peter
03-03-2003 4:47 AM


Re: statistics, lies, and damn lies
Interesting - I had not considered pop. density before.
Intuitively, I would think that, yes, a greater pop. density would have an effect.
I believe that in the US, the pop. of cities is growing while the pop. of rural areas is decreasing or remaining steady.
But your point is well taken - we are more 'shocked' when someone is murdered in Podunk, Nebraska then we are when somoone is killed in NYC.
I would think, however, that London would have a similar pop. density as NYC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 03-03-2003 4:47 AM Peter has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1982 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 31 of 72 (33557)
03-03-2003 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jdean33442
03-03-2003 2:27 PM


I am not the one I am owrrying about...
"A right to bear arms and the decision to use those arms in an illegal manner is unrelated. I would hope an educated person such as yourself would be able to differentiate between right and choice."
Yes, I can do so. Many, unfortunately, do not seem to be able to. They are the ones that worry me.
Of course, bearing the arms in the first place sure makes it tempting for some to use them in the manner that they were, after all, intended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jdean33442, posted 03-03-2003 2:27 PM jdean33442 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jdean33442, posted 03-03-2003 4:15 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1982 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 40 of 72 (33631)
03-04-2003 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jdean33442
03-03-2003 4:15 PM


Re: I am not the one I am owrrying about...
quote:
quote:
Yes, I can do so. Many, unfortunately, do not seem to be able to. They are the ones that worry me.
Of course, bearing the arms in the first place sure makes it tempting for some to use them in the manner that they were, after all, intended.
So you believe gun control laws should be imposed because a very small minority use guns illegally?
perhaps it can be pointed wherein I have advocated "gun control" laws of the type the likes of jdean seem to think I am in favor of?
Of course, i do believe that some gun control is necessary. I find it hard ot believe that the framers would have wanted Joe Sixpack to be able to purchase anti-tank rockets, as some in the NRA seem to have no problem with...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jdean33442, posted 03-03-2003 4:15 PM jdean33442 has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1982 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 41 of 72 (33632)
03-04-2003 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mark24
03-03-2003 8:23 PM


Re: just another article about effect of gun control
Indeed - it doesn't seem to sink in with the gun worshipper crowd.
I would much rather have someone come at me with a knife or a club than a gun.
I at least stand a chance against someone with a club or a knife.
I know, I know - why, if I also had a gun, I wouldn't have to worry about it.
Well, yes, I would. You see, more often than not, if someone is going to rob, kill, or assault you with a weapon, they already have it out or have ready access to it. Even if I was carrying a concealed hand gun, I would have to 'dig' for it, while my assailant is popping a cap in me.
The alternative seems to be carrying a six-gun on my hip all the time.
Its funny - we kept hearing how the concealed weapon laws would cause crime to drop. Well, in a sense, it did (from what I recall) - 'career' criminals were now less violent. But folks that were not violent before, now had a quick and easy fix for their problems. Hence the reference to shooting someone over a parking spot. Within a week of Texas passing their concealed weapon law, an otherwise law abiding citizen - legally packing heat - did just that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 03-03-2003 8:23 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-04-2003 2:46 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 43 by RedVento, posted 03-04-2003 3:40 PM derwood has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024