If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Thanatos, you are much more concerned with winning the argument than in what's right. true zealotry. If someone presented you with incontrovertible evidence tomorrow morning that you were wrong, and that banning handguns would reduce the homicide rate, would you accept it? Or would you, as I suspect, simply ignore them? Why can't you be more open minded?
PS why have you chosen a classical representation of death as your nickname?
I never proved your point if anything I pointed out that your statistics were very much in question - ie the 43x liklihood of killing a loved one vs an intruder and the 13 kids killed a day myth.
If you could present a logical argument for banning them of course Id listen, problem is, none exist.
You ignore the dramatic rise in violent crime within Australia after that country outlawed firearms. The contrapositive reality to your supposition.
You ignore that Switzerland has the lowest crime rate of ALL nations, yet has the highest proliferation of REAL assault rifles ON EARTH. Inconvenient to your argument, eh? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
You ignore that Europe has much higher suicide rates than the US? Add the suicide and murder rates together, and they generally come out similarly. European psyche is to kill yourself rather than deal with the problem, US psyche is to kill the problem.
You accept that both sides have divergent stats to point to, yet ignore that Lott (in particular) went in attempting to justify gun grabbing legislation, and had his perspective changed radically when exposed to reality.
CONFRONT THAT ONE? OR JUST INCONVENIENT TO YOU?
I responded to your posts, but you refuse to respond/counter THAT piece of evidence. STILL INCONVENIENT TO YOU???
{The above in bold so as to (hopefully) FINALLY get the attention of them who subjectively refuse respondance to the issues...}
ONLY thing proven is that Kentish, Whowhere, Prufrock, etc. refuse to read other than their own posts.
Because Lott was on your side until he did the exhaustive research, his stats are arguably the most credible, and less emotionally distorted. Again, that would be inconvenient to your emotionalism, eh?
Again, <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Lott was a gun-grabber zealot. Reality changed his view. The tag "zealot" would also point toward your refusal to respond to the counter... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> You have no prima facie case, although you present yourself as believing you do. Just because you have swallowed the bait does not make it true. Rather like stealgate and his communism.
One more time for the FNG (and hopefully the LAST time):
I am a Vietnam veteran. Thanatos is a tag that was hung upon me three decades ago, in that place. Two tours, finished the second as a USMC E-7 (gunny sgt) leading a platoon in continual heavy combat. It had to do with proficiency within my calling... what followed in my wake.
Let us hope that you are sufficiently intelligent to figure that one out, rather than require complete and detailed specification... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> </STRONG>
Come on Thanatos, we've been there before:
Link </STRONG>
I will never understand that argument, and I'm not even sure how relevant this myth is to the Great Gun Debate anyway. </STRONG>
Nevertheless, he is just one source of information. He happens to fit your prejudice, and that was Prufrock's point. </STRONG>
On the contrary: I read all of your arguments (I even go to some of Diesel's pointlessly irrelevant links <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> ).
Just because I disagree, and refuse to respond to some of the unfounded rhetoric, doesn't mean I (we) don't read through it all. Your CV is irrelevant Thanatos, just say it is a nickname <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
Explain your colloquialism, please? CV?
Would you prefer that I point to some of the most vocal/visible adherents of gun-grabbing? Sarah Brady (of Brady Bill fame) and her straw purchase of a firearm for her son? Rosie O'Donnell on O'Reilly Factor stating that she had re-thought her position after 11 September?
How far do you want to go?
and you still have not addressed the huge increase in violent crime in Australia after their gun grabbing laaws were enacted... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
http://www.iansa.org/documents/research/2000/aussie_guns.htm
I think you'll find that crime in Australia isn't as bad as you make out since they banned guns.
Firstly, the AUstralian gun control laws are deeply flawed. The buy-back sheme which they operated was successful to a degree, but 2 in 5 australian gun owners ignored it and illegally own the same weapons. Also, in several states the onlny necessary qualification to buy a gun is to be a member of a gun club which have actually loosened their membership requirements since the law change. Those who advocated the laws in the first place remain deeply unsatisfied by the current situation.
Secondly, and most importantly... well, guess what, thanatos? You're just plain wrong! again! your delusional rhetoric hardly trumps reality. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
here's why:
after the law change gun homicides fell by 35%. All homicides fell by 11.5%.
Your 'statistic' is misleading because though total violent crime has increased the rate of increase was radically lower than befor the gun control laws: armed robbery up 10% rather than 20%, assaults up 6% rather than 9.5%.
So, once again, you've proved my point about twisting the facts to suit your case. Or maybe you just aread about it on th NRA website and didn't do any research on your own... what is it you keep saying about sheep?
a couple of other things :
1. since we're taking about not addressing points, you still haven't elaborated on your 'homicide has ended' remark.
2. Your remark about europeans and suicide is an absurd racist generalisation, deeply and makes it very difficult to take you seriously. It would be offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous. 'European psyche'? you're pretty ignorant about the place if you think there's one psyche. I think you ought to take that back and apologise.
3.
A little verbose, but yes, thanatos, I get it. At least I think so. ALthough I'm probably just too darn stupid.
4. Ooh, well if Rosie O'Donnell says so, it must be true! after all, she's something of an authority on the matter.
World over, the gun lobby has lost the argument, thanatos, morally and statistically, and the only thing that keeps change from happening in America is a republican administration with close links to the NRA. The sooner that changes the better.
PS A CV is a curriculum vitae: sort of potted life history for future employers etc. I think it's called a resume in the states?
Your floor. YOU explain why the suicide rates in Europe highly exceed the US, and why when you add suicide rates and homicide rates for any country, they fairly well total the same.
Racist? Oh... the last grasp desperate attempt to resort to emotionalism to sway an argument? LAUGH MY FUCKING ASS OFF!!! Hurt your little feelings, did it? Oh, boohoo... <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
btw ~ there are several municipalities that have passed manditory gun ownership statutes, and homicide has dropped to zero. Off the top of my head: Virgin, Utah, and Marietta, Georgia.( Now is the moment you respond with "red-neck trailer trash" comments...)
US has a cultural history with firearms. It fomented at Concord and Lexington, where England attempted to confiscate weapons from colonials, and we threw your oppressive asses out of this country.
Weapons confiscation is one of the earliest acts of any oppressive government, whether Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler.
US Second Amendment was written to safeguard against the tyranny of those like you. It's expressed purpose was not to control crime in the streets, but subjugation to those who would strip men of their liberty to choose their own lives. Strange, isn't it, how the liberal always has "the better way", and the conservative would have you "live your life any damned way you please, just stay out of mine?"
You want them? Come and get them... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Me thinks you to be the loud-mouthed coward, not one who would stand the post. Your moment of edification begs fruition, and you shall comprehend fully why the moniker Thanatos.
p.s ~ He asked "why the moniker". That it is a "nickname" was self-evident... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
ALL gun control laws are deeply flawed, as are the minds which conceive them.
You have yet to convince me that any of your rhetoric is based on fact. You have a closed mind on this, and no matter how many threads we open, we will never agree.
</STRONG>
In which case, you didn't answer the question. You gave us your military resume, and said it was a nickname given to you then. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
You are going to demean FATHEAD ROSIE?!?!? <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
She argues the same points as you!
ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF!!!!
ROFLMAO
http://www.users.qwest.net/~gbollinger/legacy/legacy.html
Reading comprehension still a tenuous illusion?
Someone who had been familiar with my military service affixed a sticker with the name onto a racing motorcycle as an inside joke during the time I was racing professionally... it had to do with "attitude" on the racetrack. It "stuck"...
I have been Thanatos for more than thirty years.
the fact that you think that website thinks it explains why guns shouldn't be banned, or that you insist on owning a gun yet cannot explain why without resorting to posting links to other peoples opinions.
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
What? Speak English <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Your pretentious use of our language has nothing to do with my ability to read. If you do speak in such a convoluted way, how on earth do you expect us to understand what you are trying to say.
<IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Thank-you, Brother Diesel.
Like stealgate, the gun-grabbers always promise "We'll get it 'right', this time."
They expect us to march to their tune, like submissive little sheep, just like the Jews 60 years ago.
You want them? Come and get them...
Guess I need to "dumb-down" "for the children"... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Reading comprehension STILL lacking? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
IF you come to make the attempt once again to confiscate our weapons, you WILL comprehend the moniker. Ain't no "threat", but rather, A PROMISE!
Cause and effect. You bring about the cause, and you will have earned the effect. If you want to avoid the effect, avoid the cause.
You have yet to witness the reality of "aggression"...
You personify "the arrogance of youth".
You live in your safe little microcosm, and blather about the realities that I (and others) have survived. For you, simply self-possessed debate. For me (and others)? We deal with the consequences every damned day.
It was feeble little minds like yours which brought about WW2, and the Holocaust.
Congratulations.
Only state which has it correct is Vermont, where ALL adults without felony records are presumed to have the US constitutional right to carry arms. You do not apply for the privilege of using your "right" there.
CCW laws are a subjugation. They are not "gun control" laws, but the loophole through oppression.
As far as an "NRA sheep"... there are MANY things about the NRA which I disagree with, including there perspective upon "assault" weapons.
btw ~ my preference is toward Main Battle Rifles, rather than Assault Rifles. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Shit! I didn't realise I was responsible for the holocaust AND World War II! I'm really sorry! Once again, I'd be offended if it wasn't such a silly thing to say. I was think demonising your opponent is a pretty clear sign of weakness in an argument.
Sorry if I was wrong about rosie O donnell. I thought your post was implying that post september 11 she'd decided that handguns should be legal and she'd thought differently before: I don't know anything about her except she was in the flintstones. I still don't think her opinion is particularly relevant, whether I agree with it or not.
Also, Thanatos, it's not clever to use long complex words when short simple ones will do. It's pretension.
Finally, that video is utterly hysterical in tone, and proves exactly what's wrong with the gun lobby.
PS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE answer our points about Australia. Or have you conceded defeat in that one?
LMAO, feeble minds like ours that caused the war?
What shit are you on? Okay, so let's see. Hitler....yes he wasn't at all agressive was he?
If anything it was people with minds like yours that caused world war 2. People who assume that a violent response is the only answer to a problem.
I don't see how us thinking guns are unecessary can be lead you into thinknig it's people like us who start wars.
Yes, you live with the conscequences of your actions every day, no reason to bring them up here.
Your experiences in a war that ended 30 years ago have no relevance in a debate about guns, stop bringing it up. It's like listening to an old guy in a pub "In the good ol' days". Just give it a rest, and address the issue at hand.
You still ignore any evidence we come up with to counter your "we need guns" opinion, if I remember rightly, you were the one who mentioned Australia as being a perfect model for why gun control is bad...then minutes later we prove you wrong.
You bring up switzerland, but conviently ignore the fact that the people who own assault rifles are required to by law, BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE NATIONAL GUARD. If Swizterland is drawn into a war, all those men with assault rifles are called upon to fight. It is still illegal for them to shoot someone in peacetime, even if their house is being broken into. And as for defending themselves in the street, how many people do you know, with all their mental faculties, go parading round the streets with a damn assault rifle?
You state that there are discrepancies in stats, and you will not believe ANY stats that are contradictory to yours. What value is there in doing the work to pull up the stats I have which show the rise in violent crime in Australia when you are going to deny/ignore them?
Government officials ALWAYS tell the truth, right? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Would NEVER hold back anything which might make them look bad, right? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> The media NEVER lie, right? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Research which I will give credence to is that which was done to prove a particular point, but contradicted the prejudice, and required the researcher to change his position. Lott comes to mind. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> That, however is inconvenient to your position, so you MUST ignore it. Finding unbiased material is difficult, but Lott goes beyond unbiased because of the nature of his research.
You blather the same emotional perspective as Rosie O'Donnell, and I view you in the same manner, contempt. How can you discount Fat Rosie, when she mouths the same words? Laughing at yourself?
Many of us live with the consequential ramifications of having fools of your ilk determine our lives. WW2 was the consequence of feeble little minds as yours. The Holocaust was made possible by feeble little minds as yours.
No adult is victimized by an "outlaw". An adult makes the choice as to be a combatant, or a willing victim. You believe that it puts you on a higher moral plane to be a willing victim; I do not.
You run your blather from the protected microcosm of the classroom, and in that venue, your idealism works. In the reality of this world, it does not. When I was a child, I was an idealist, I had very liberal leanings; when I became an adult, when I experienced the true nature of the world around me, I put aside those childish ideas, and became a man. You prefer that the responsibility for protecting you be assumed by anyone other than yourself, and that is generally indicative of a deep personal cowardice. Me? I faced those fears, beat them back, and survived the defining moments. Does that make me better than you? No... it just means that I am a man, rather than a child. When I was your age, I had already been to war. I had already killed, and many had made the attempt to kill me.
Life away from the teat is a very, very scarey thing, isn't it?
Does Vietnam have anything pertinent to "gun-control"? From your perspective, no. From reality, most certainly YES! I have seen first hand and survived the consequences of your strain of self-possessed ignorance and arrogance, in places all over this planet.
You believe that the word and the vote are more powerful than firearms. That is a pathetic delusion.
I have seen tyranny, with my own eyes, and it begins with the likes of you. You empower the Pol Pots, the Idi Amins, the Hitlers...you enable their agenda, because you willfully close your eyes to all that opposes your nirvana.
So be it. You fully deserve what you have wrought. However, should you attempt to impose it upon me, you will die. That fucking simple. To resist your tyranny requires to ability to resist, and that involves weapons. YOU are a great reason for those like me to never let go of our weapons.
Enjoy the taste of reality, yet?
Point by point, then:
I haven't ignored your point about Australia. I have simply demonstrated why it is wrong. To say again: yes, total violent crime has risen in Australia since the laws changed - but by LESS than it rose in the years before the legal change; also, gun homicides and all homicides have fallen dramatically.
If you don't trust the government, where in God's name are you getting your statistics re: australia from?
If you insist on going on about Lott, here are a number of facts about him:
1. It's misleading to suggest that he used to be a committed pro-gun control figure. Many of the views he stated before making his study were consistent with an anti-gun control position: for instance, he advocated teachers carrying guns in school. How many Gun control lobby figures say things like that? (also, it may interest you to know that not only does he think that some crime is beneficial for society, he also believes that more ethnic monorities in police forces leads to more crime.)
His methodology, as the link posted pointed out, has been widely criticised - principally because it didn't account for other variables that might lead to changes in crime rates, like chanegs in poverty rates and more money spent on policing. These seem like pretty important factors to me, not really ones that should be left out of a study on changes in crime rates!
He has even been discredited by a pro-gun lobby member respected by the NRA, criminologist Gary Kleck. What was it you were saying about researchers who change their minds being the most convincing?
As for Rosie O'Donnell - are you deaf? BEcause I don't live in the states I know very little about this woman. You said she had become more pro-gun post 9/11: I pointed out that she probably isn't exactly an authority on the matter. WHETHER SHE AGREES WITH ME OR NOT HER OPINION IS OF NO RELEVANCE: that's not the same as ridiculing her position. OK? Can we forget about her now, or will you persist in clinging to this irrelevant aside to try and strengthen your dismally weak argument?
The hysterical meat of your post is entirely lacking in fact or analysis or argument. It is simply a self-aggrandising, splenetic rant. Apparently I am a coward because I don't believe I have the right to shoot a petty criminal. I'd argue you're the coward because you see morality in such absurdly black and white terms: I am right, he is wrong, therefore I may shoot him. You're trying to abdicate your own moral responsibility towards society by making out everyone's out to get you, when in fact it's the kind of indiscriminate anger and hatred which you display which makes so much of the world so rotten.
You killed some people in Vietnam, and they tried to kill you. So fucking what? Do you seriously believe anyone who has fought in a war is more of a man than anyone who hasn't? I would say, for example, that conscientious objectors who braved incredible vilification and jail because they didn't believe that the war was justified (I'm not talking about the ones who didn't want to fight because they were cowards) showed a kind of moral courage which you entirely lack. An don't say you don't think you're better than me when you so obviously do.
Finally, please stop threatening (or promising, or whatever you call it) to kill me. It doesn't make what you say any more powerful or convincing.
PS I think - and this is as much my fault as yours - that this has become much too personal, rather than being about the issues, and I would like to try and elevate the debate a bit. Hope you agree.
Let us call this post ADDRESSING FALLACIES, and I shall attempt to "dumb it down" "for the children"...
Merit of service in combat:
How much of the world have you seen? How much have you traveled from what you consider "the armpit..."? Ever been to a war zone? Ever witnessed the dis-empowered subjugated to tyranny?
Combat veterans whom I know (from nations ALL over the world) came back from their wars with the realization that laws are illusionary constraints. They mean nothing, except to those who believe in them.
You prance a belief system that "laws make you safe". "If we take every law-abiding man's guns, then no one can shoot me." News break: Much of the world, including your little island, do not give a damn about your laws. To dis-empower yourself willingly simply makes you all the more vulnerable. If I were of the intent, I could take anything and everything from you - including your life, with weapons procured on YOUR island - and you could not resist, because you have already chosen unilaterally to disarm yourself.
THAT is the reality, whether you choose to acknowledge it, or prefer to hide from it.
btw ~ My initiation to CQC came prior to military service. I had been attacked twice, in the PRK ~ once by knife, and once by revolver. I successfully defended my life. I chose to be a combatant, not a victim. I was wounded both times, but not as badly as the miscreant. I have not been without weapons since: I do not enjoy healing from combat wounds, military OR civilian.
Presumption of guilt: You disprove any claim to "freedom" or "liberty" by your insistence to the presumption of guilt prior to the act. While that might work for a Tom Cruise movie (and play to the hearts and minds of the physical cowards), it is the same mindset as women who would clamor that ALL men be neutered at birth, because "they might commit a rape". While that might suit YOU, it most certainly does NOT appear an inviting concept to me. I would anticipate that as soon as cloning process becomes viable for humans, you will be an adherent to male neuterization at birth, for reasons of "safety". <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
What happened to due process, to punishing the guilty, rather than the innocent? Oh, I forgot! <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> You believe that punishment is "immoral", and we should "rehabilitate" the poor criminal, who is only the "victim" of society as a whole. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Statistical probability vs. worst case scenario: Simply because it is "less likely" that you would be attacked by an armed assailant (within YOUR belief system), does NOT mean that it will not happen. I do not wear a seat belt because I crash cars frequently (once in the last twenty years when someone else ran a stop sign); I do not wear a helmet and leathers because I crash motorcycles frequently (twice in the last million plus miles, both times hit by car driver's negligence); I do not have fire insurance because I am a pyro-maniac (never had a loss to fire).
I arm myself at all times because I am a realist, not an idealist... I left that behind with my childhood, something from which you have not separated yourself. It is not a matter of my "living in fear" (as has been "suggested" here), but a preparedness against the worst that might happen, and it comes from having experienced much more of the world, and for a much longer time. Some wander around admiring the clouds in the sky, and some look at where they step, lest they tread in the piles of dogshit... and never must wonder why the carpet got to be such a mess.
All of the "statistical probability" means squat when it is YOU facing the moment...
The purpose of US Second Amendment was that EVERY free man has the responsibility to defend that freedom, and cannot without the means. The basis was a national security, rather than insulation from crime. Several Japanese generals stated after WW2 that the biggest reason that they did not attempt to invade the US was the proliferation of firearms within this country. If UK's military ~ which pales in comparison to the US (so sorry if reality is distasteful) ~ were to be overwhelmed, what would deter invasion/subjugation of your country? You have willingly disarmed yourselves... <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> The generosity of them who have already conquered you?
THAT is the jist of my PROMISE. I have made no physical threat toward you ~ why would I want to demean myself by coming to an island where "men" are proud to parade as sheep? You willingly give away any capability to resist your subjugation, and continue to think yourselves "free"? Contradiction in basic terms.
Threat vs. promise: IF YOU MAKE THE ATTEMPT TO SUBJUGATE ME TO YOUR TYRANNY, YOU WILL DIE! That is what I said, and that is what I meant. The violence is contingent upon your choice of action. You stay out of my life, and I don't give a damn what you do to yourself, how reprehensibly you demean and pervert yourself. If you parade like lemmings to the cliffs at Dover, I really don't give a damn. If you chose to make the attempt to enslave ME to YOUR stupidity and naivete, however, then you WILL die.
You see, I am not a sheep: I have not abdicated my responsibility to my own security and freedom to the sheepherder.
Humorous (and pathetic), is it not, to witness a sheep trying to talk the wolf out of eating him? <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> How ya doin', Lambchop?
OR...
Perhaps...
the REAL issue is that the UK is MUCH more barbaric than the US, and the lot of you REALLY cannot be trusted with the same freedoms/responsibilities as the US? Could it be that you are truly ever so more vile, and less sophisticated, educated, and genteel than you pride yourselves? If you had firearms, you would be MUCH more lawless than the US? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> You have not the discipline and self-constraint to prevent the obliteration of your island, if the means were more readily available? You are not "sheep", but rather, all of you are "soccer hoodlums" at heart?
Perhaps Diesel IS correct, AND apropos: you have NOT "evolved" from "the Old Pirate Kingdom", afterall?
LMFAO! <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
<IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Your edification awaits.
And Diesel, if you took your head out of Thanatos' rectum for a second (though that does explain the faecal content of your posts roflmao), you would realise that there are lots of varying views on the role of the government, and that there is only really stealgate here who leans towards an anti-government attitude.
Come and get yours too.
Check your history books: we already did, two centuries ago (or has that been "revised" also?). Perhaps we should turn the tables, and colonize you? <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Not real swift at understanding sarcasm, are you? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
btw... those two thoughts were posted as mutually exclusive. The first is valid, and the second is just poking fun at you. What are you going to do, debate us to death? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> How ya doin', Lambchop?
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: Thanatos...AGAIN ]
If violence is your answer, then I dread to think what the question is.
If you want violence, bring it on. Buttmunch <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">