Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: i think germany for example, the third biggest sport organisation here is shooting sport. Then again we have, i think, the hardest weapons laws in the world. While any citizen can own guns you must proof that you´re able to understand what you´re holding in your hands, proof that you´re able to lock it and pay some time and € for training and all those licenses till you can actually buy guns for your own.
And i see nothing wrong with this because the majority doesn´t feel that they´ve taken away their right to wear firearms. Because of that, i sometimes have a hard understanding why "everyone" should have free and uncontrolled acccess (2nd buyer) to guns and even kids (5-18.) years), like you in the US. Or why you feel you "need" to "guarantee" the "ability" to "fight" your own goverment. Many " marks i think but i don´t want to say anything wrong.
We don't all see it that way. Germany is not the United States. Different cultures.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: If "we" would have a dictator again we would get weapons from all around the world or the black market. Even the weapons we have right now would be sufficient to make a guerilla war happen. Imagine that in a land with the hardest weapon laws.
In my eyes the next dictator in the western world is more a product of the economy and their power to influence politics but not the "goverment" itself. It´s a creeping process. And guns won´t help you to fight it. Just a sharp mind, a community, your voice and foresight. Yes. When you as a citizen failed and it´s all too late, then it´s time for a call to arms.
Your voice absolutely IS a better tool for preventing tyranny, but it shouldn't be your only one. Look how well speaking out worked for the people in Tianenmen Square.
On May 05 2013 09:12 Nachtwind wrote: And the pro self defense argument is based that a potential criminal fear his target/victim because he "could" bear firearms - we don´t speak about "defense skills" and "defense tools" yet.
The situations where one comes into "melee" range of an attack, any weapon we can get in the free market would be functionally adequate.
Melee range doesn't suddenly make guns worthless. Even if they knock you down, and are beating you, you can still draw your gun and fire. Its not like you really have to aim when they're on you. And yes, you might still lose, but its better than a guaranteed loss.
The weapons of today aren't THAT different. They're still just guns. And the government can't use the things that ARE different, because they're terribly ineffective at dealing with guerrilla forces. Tanks can't kick down your door at 2AM, and jets can't enforce a curfew.
Sure our scientist when it comes down to weapon controll pay a HUGE and i mean huge attention about every little thing you could imagine. That´s about "different cultures because" that´s also a part about our own science in this matter.
it´s like a full paragraph is explaining like an excuse that the data coud be used "biased" and could be interpreted in anyway but the data is nontheless there.
The next thing though .. "Tianenmen Square" I mean you can´t compare this situations. And about the self defense part .. well i was in a martial arts club from our local police since i was 8 i´m now 30 so i won´t argue here.
And the weapon part is bolded and i don´t meaned gun weapons with weapons.
I'm not saying the US is now as bad as Tianenmen Square, I'm saying it could happen, I wouldn't want to be armed with nothing more than my voice in the event that things do get that bad.
Not everyone has done martial arts training since they were 8, nor can they be expected to. I'm 21, and I've been in a wheelchair all my life. No amount of martial arts training is going to help me defend myself, but a gun might.
Not to offend you but losing the ability to walk/run is shit. Don´t think you want my pity because that offend strong people. Then again if everything is going right you´ll have 10 times more "power" in your "legs" in 15 year then i have. I hope so.=)
edit: And then we´re driffting away from what i wrote and the same circle jerk begins again we saw ~500 pages
I've got Muscular Dystrophy. I didn't actually get a wheelchair till I was 5, but I've never been able to walk. Wheelchairs are insanely expensive, so I didn't get one till I needed to go to school. My current chair was $20,000
On May 05 2013 03:05 thetaoptimus wrote: If car driver goes mad and starts killing pedestrians - then we should ban cars?
Should people be allowed to own and drive Cars?
Lol what kind of analogy is that? I dont think cars and weapons have the same purpose. Just saying.
You're right, I've never used my car to run over targets for sport, run over game for food for my family, and never to run down a criminal to protect my own life and liberty.
To that writer I would say that I wish he could view the issue through the lens of public health too
In the gun debate, I’ve discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn’t seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that.
To this I'd tell him, "yeah, it's too bad, maybe we could stop blocking funding for research into guns"
And all in all it has way too much of the "liberals vs. me" feel to it, which I'm not at all interested in. The bipartisan squabbling opinion pieces don't interest me as much as the nonpartisan peer reviewed pieces
Another example of why gun advocates don't trust gun grabbers. Why should I or anyone who believes in the right to bear arms listen to the gun control side when remarks like Mr. Perry's grace the pages of allegedly reputable newspapers?
To that writer I would say that I wish he could view the issue through the lens of public health too
Another example of what I was talking about earlier that you flipped your lid over. You want the issue viewed from the perspective that benefits your position most and has a veneer of objectivity to it.
To this I'd tell him, "yeah, it's too bad, maybe we could stop blocking funding for research into guns"
So basically you would close your mind and respond with a flippant, dismissive remark, something I remember you flipping your lid over because you thought that's what I was doing.
And all in all it has way too much of the "liberals vs. me" feel to it, which I'm not at all interested in. The bipartisan squabbling opinion pieces don't interest me as much as the nonpartisan peer reviewed pieces
Aaaaaand the second example in your post of exactly what I was talking about before. Nonpartisan peer reviewed doesn't mean anything except "it should be given more weight."
Agreed mostly (on the whole "peer reviewed journal articles should carry more weight than extremist right wing Op/Ed pieces)
The fact that you are down there on that low level where you generalize and label your opponents ("gun grabbers") suggests that you aren't full of too many legitimate defenses against more responsible gun control. I don't recall labeling you or anyone with particularly extremist views as a "gun nut", so I see no need to start tossing around cute terms like "gun grabber". It's also especially cool that your biggest argument so far is that a public health perspective on more responsible gun control is a political propaganda tool. Ya can't even argue against a guy who thinks like that, it's failsafe!
Another example of why gun advocates don't trust gun grabbers. Why should I or anyone who believes in the right to bear arms listen to the gun control side when remarks like Mr. Perry's grace the pages of allegedly reputable newspapers?
To that writer I would say that I wish he could view the issue through the lens of public health too
Another example of what I was talking about earlier that you flipped your lid over. You want the issue viewed from the perspective that benefits your position most and has a veneer of objectivity to it.
To this I'd tell him, "yeah, it's too bad, maybe we could stop blocking funding for research into guns"
So basically you would close your mind and respond with a flippant, dismissive remark, something I remember you flipping your lid over because you thought that's what I was doing.
And all in all it has way too much of the "liberals vs. me" feel to it, which I'm not at all interested in. The bipartisan squabbling opinion pieces don't interest me as much as the nonpartisan peer reviewed pieces
Aaaaaand the second example in your post of exactly what I was talking about before. Nonpartisan peer reviewed doesn't mean anything except "it should be given more weight."
What's wrong with you today? You usually post better. I'd argue, but all you've been doing is posting shitty opinion pieces and crying about how you're oppressed or something. Both of the articles you've posted are moronic, extremist shit. I could barely finish the first piece because I couldn't stop laughing. The last page or so was a massive self contradiction, while the entire article could have been written from an extremist pro-gun point of view with little editing.
I mean do you seriously wonder why the guy wrote the second piece? IT'S AN OPINION PIECE FOR A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER IN AURORA FUCKING COLORADO. YOU KNOW? THAT DENVER SUBURB WHERE A GUY SHOT 70 PEOPLE IN A THEATER? YEAH I BET THAT GUYS NOT LOOKING FOR ATTENTION AT ALL! The entire point of the fucking article was to get people to complain about it. By sharing shit like that you encourage the shit journalism which is becoming the norm in this country.
Seriously, who the fuck are Dave Perry, and Barry Snell and why are they important to this discussion (or any)? oh, here's one: Barry Snell is a senior in history and political science from Muscatine, Iowa HOW CREDIBLE Dave Perry is an editor for a small-time daily online tabloid which gets printed once a week on Thursdays.
Another example of why gun advocates don't trust gun grabbers. Why should I or anyone who believes in the right to bear arms listen to the gun control side when remarks like Mr. Perry's grace the pages of allegedly reputable newspapers?
To that writer I would say that I wish he could view the issue through the lens of public health too
Another example of what I was talking about earlier that you flipped your lid over. You want the issue viewed from the perspective that benefits your position most and has a veneer of objectivity to it.
To this I'd tell him, "yeah, it's too bad, maybe we could stop blocking funding for research into guns"
So basically you would close your mind and respond with a flippant, dismissive remark, something I remember you flipping your lid over because you thought that's what I was doing.
And all in all it has way too much of the "liberals vs. me" feel to it, which I'm not at all interested in. The bipartisan squabbling opinion pieces don't interest me as much as the nonpartisan peer reviewed pieces
Aaaaaand the second example in your post of exactly what I was talking about before. Nonpartisan peer reviewed doesn't mean anything except "it should be given more weight."
What's interesting about the link isn't the actual article, it's the comments. Yikes.
Another example of why gun advocates don't trust gun grabbers. Why should I or anyone who believes in the right to bear arms listen to the gun control side when remarks like Mr. Perry's grace the pages of allegedly reputable newspapers?
To that writer I would say that I wish he could view the issue through the lens of public health too
Another example of what I was talking about earlier that you flipped your lid over. You want the issue viewed from the perspective that benefits your position most and has a veneer of objectivity to it.
To this I'd tell him, "yeah, it's too bad, maybe we could stop blocking funding for research into guns"
So basically you would close your mind and respond with a flippant, dismissive remark, something I remember you flipping your lid over because you thought that's what I was doing.
And all in all it has way too much of the "liberals vs. me" feel to it, which I'm not at all interested in. The bipartisan squabbling opinion pieces don't interest me as much as the nonpartisan peer reviewed pieces
Aaaaaand the second example in your post of exactly what I was talking about before. Nonpartisan peer reviewed doesn't mean anything except "it should be given more weight."
What's interesting about the link isn't the actual article, it's the comments. Yikes.
Yeah, some of them I agree with, others made me cringe:
they also have a monopoly on gay sex and dead infants
I get it...they're pro-life. But what the fuck is a monopoly on gay sex?
(Sorry, not trying to de-rail the thread, just found it funny)
Another example of why gun advocates don't trust gun grabbers. Why should I or anyone who believes in the right to bear arms listen to the gun control side when remarks like Mr. Perry's grace the pages of allegedly reputable newspapers?
To that writer I would say that I wish he could view the issue through the lens of public health too
Another example of what I was talking about earlier that you flipped your lid over. You want the issue viewed from the perspective that benefits your position most and has a veneer of objectivity to it.
To this I'd tell him, "yeah, it's too bad, maybe we could stop blocking funding for research into guns"
So basically you would close your mind and respond with a flippant, dismissive remark, something I remember you flipping your lid over because you thought that's what I was doing.
And all in all it has way too much of the "liberals vs. me" feel to it, which I'm not at all interested in. The bipartisan squabbling opinion pieces don't interest me as much as the nonpartisan peer reviewed pieces
Aaaaaand the second example in your post of exactly what I was talking about before. Nonpartisan peer reviewed doesn't mean anything except "it should be given more weight."
What's interesting about the link isn't the actual article, it's the comments. Yikes.
Yeah, some of them I agree with, others made me cringe:
Another example of why gun advocates don't trust gun grabbers. Why should I or anyone who believes in the right to bear arms listen to the gun control side when remarks like Mr. Perry's grace the pages of allegedly reputable newspapers?
To that writer I would say that I wish he could view the issue through the lens of public health too
Another example of what I was talking about earlier that you flipped your lid over. You want the issue viewed from the perspective that benefits your position most and has a veneer of objectivity to it.
To this I'd tell him, "yeah, it's too bad, maybe we could stop blocking funding for research into guns"
So basically you would close your mind and respond with a flippant, dismissive remark, something I remember you flipping your lid over because you thought that's what I was doing.
And all in all it has way too much of the "liberals vs. me" feel to it, which I'm not at all interested in. The bipartisan squabbling opinion pieces don't interest me as much as the nonpartisan peer reviewed pieces
Aaaaaand the second example in your post of exactly what I was talking about before. Nonpartisan peer reviewed doesn't mean anything except "it should be given more weight."
What's interesting about the link isn't the actual article, it's the comments. Yikes.
Yeah, some of them I agree with, others made me cringe:
they also have a monopoly on gay sex and dead infants
I get it...they're pro-life. But what the fuck is a monopoly on gay sex?
(Sorry, not trying to de-rail the thread, just found it funny)
It's baffling how polarized people on both sides of the debate can get.
If you're Pro-gun-'freedom', you're a mindless, religious, militant, blood thirsty, uneducated redneck zealot that would rather see kids go on shooting rampages than see stricter regulations on guns.
If you're Pro-gun-control, you're a socialist commie facist faggot that will willfully sacrifice all freedom to a corrupt government as long as you get your hand-outs.
I've met actual Americans. Most are nice, complicated people. There's a huge spectrum between these two extremes.
Another example of why gun advocates don't trust gun grabbers. Why should I or anyone who believes in the right to bear arms listen to the gun control side when remarks like Mr. Perry's grace the pages of allegedly reputable newspapers?
To that writer I would say that I wish he could view the issue through the lens of public health too
Another example of what I was talking about earlier that you flipped your lid over. You want the issue viewed from the perspective that benefits your position most and has a veneer of objectivity to it.
To this I'd tell him, "yeah, it's too bad, maybe we could stop blocking funding for research into guns"
So basically you would close your mind and respond with a flippant, dismissive remark, something I remember you flipping your lid over because you thought that's what I was doing.
And all in all it has way too much of the "liberals vs. me" feel to it, which I'm not at all interested in. The bipartisan squabbling opinion pieces don't interest me as much as the nonpartisan peer reviewed pieces
Aaaaaand the second example in your post of exactly what I was talking about before. Nonpartisan peer reviewed doesn't mean anything except "it should be given more weight."
What's interesting about the link isn't the actual article, it's the comments. Yikes.
Yeah, some of them I agree with, others made me cringe:
they also have a monopoly on gay sex and dead infants
I get it...they're pro-life. But what the fuck is a monopoly on gay sex?
(Sorry, not trying to de-rail the thread, just found it funny)
It's baffling how polarized people on both sides of the debate can get.
If you're Pro-gun-'freedom', you're a mindless, religious, militant, blood thirsty, uneducated redneck zealot that would rather see kids go on shooting rampages than see stricter regulations on guns.
If you're Pro-gun-control, you're a socialist commie facist faggot that will willfully sacrifice all freedom to a corrupt government as long as your get your hand-outs.
I've met actual Americans. Most are nice, complicated people. There's a huge spectrum between these two extremes.
On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote: Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we.
But why should it be your right?
Because we put it on a peice of paper to start out the country, and the country's doing pretty good.
i would disagree. Also, thats not a very good argument. (unless you are joking and i am missing the joke)
Doing "pretty well" is completely subjective so obviously not everyone will agree on whether or not it is "doing well" but you thinking it is "not doing well" isn't a very good argument to take away peoples rights either, unless you can provide significant data to support that taking away those rights will change that.
It's a bad argument because we have added/removed/changed the wording of that piece of paper many times since its inception. And I'm not even talking about swinging interpretations by the Supreme Court I mean outright changing the words that are on that piece of paper. How well the country is doing is not part of it.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://mimg.ugo.com/201202/2/1/9/218912/cuts/cheney_528_poster.jpg)
