221286 Bullies, 4164 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 111 to 120 of 135
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 289101112 1314 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Shoalhaven, Australia
    Posts
    3,155

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 12:03pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    i'm tired and going to bed, but i thought i might throw these at you two. i'll be expecting you to examine the sources of course...

    The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

    The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.

    Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

    The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.

    The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

    The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

    * U.S.A. 14.24
    * Brazil 12.95
    * Mexico 12.69
    * Estonia 12.26
    * Argentina 8.93
    * Northern Ireland 6.63
    * Finland 6.46
    * Switzerland 5.31
    * France 5.15
    * Canada 4.31
    * Norway 3.82
    * Austria 3.70
    * Portugal 3.20
    * Israel 2.91
    * Belgium 2.90
    * Australia 2.65
    * Slovenia 2.60
    * Italy 2.44
    * New Zealand 2.38
    * Denmark 2.09
    * Sweden 1.92
    * Kuwait 1.84
    * Greece 1.29
    * Germany 1.24
    * Hungary 1.11
    * Ireland 0.97
    * Spain 0.78
    * Netherlands 0.70
    * Scotland 0.54
    * England and Wales 0.41
    * Taiwan 0.37
    * Singapore 0.21
    * Mauritius 0.19
    * Hong Kong 0.14
    * South Korea 0.12
    * Japan 0.05

    Health officials believe that guns in the U.S.could become the leading cause of death attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.

    The National Rifle Association (NRA) termed the study shoddy because it did not examine all causes of violent deaths. ''What this shows is the CDC is after guns," the Associated Press quoted Dr. Paul Blackman from the NRA.
    http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...rticlekey=6166



    http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/The...unControl.html
  2. Don Gwinn is offline
    Don Gwinn's Avatar

    BJJ wins again!

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Virden, IL
    Posts
    3,569

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 4:45pm

    supporting member
     Style: Guns

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I am indeed international to you. . . but not an international defender of gun bans. ;)

    I can't examine the sources. They didn't include the sources. I'd be fascinated to know where they came up with this one, for instance:
    Health officials believe that guns in the U.S.could become the leading cause of death attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.
    To my knowledge, that didn't even come close to happening. I can't imagine it happening. I've Googled around a bit, and I can't even find a comparison between the two as causes of death, unless you want to compare the number of accidental deaths only. That makes the comparison come out to about 43,000 vs. 600 nationwide. . . . not very similar. Add in homicides and suicides, and the gun rate in 2002 was a little less than 30,000 in 2002 according to this Harvard document. That's not really comparing apples to apples, in my opinion, but this About article puts the auto fatalities at a hair under 43,000. So we're talking quite a jump there in both directions before one passes the other. Keep in mind that the firearm number includes accidents, murder, suicide, and justifiable homicide. Why we care whether someone chooses to commit suicide with a gun as opposed to a rope, I'll never know, but it's in there.

    As regards international comparisons, they're generally pointless. As we've both observed in this very thread, both gun ownership and crime have more to do with the culture than anything else, certainly more than they have to do with each other. I wouldn't want to live under the Japanese legal system no matter what the crime rate was or what gun I was allowed to own, for instance, nor would I enjoy Singapore. Too few rights, too many ways to get railroaded.

    Canada is constantly trotted out. . . but if you do an actual, direct comparison of Canada's cities, small towns and countryside to American cities, small towns and countryside about the same distance from the border, you find that the American places are about the same or safer. You have to add in cities that have no analogues in Canada such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington D.C. to get the big disparities that appear in the total number. Again, culture--the culture of the violent parts of those big American cities is as alien to most Americans as it would be to most Canadians.
    There was a time in 1999-2000 when, if we had simply redrawn the borders to put the city of Detroit in Canada and made no other changes, we'd have switched places and Canada would have had higher rates of most violent crime than the U.S. That's ONE major U.S. city.

    the scars are just too deep for me to see it that way. i care about everyone.
    Caring about everyone is fine. It doesn't entitle you to run their lives for them.

    i think that the recreational use of MJ should be actively discouraged. i know many people who smoke. i don't see them as criminals.
    You can't have it both ways. If you want a law on the books charging them as criminals for their actions, then you see those actions as criminal. If you don't see those actions as criminal, then how on Earth do you justify punishing these people as criminals?

    (regarding someone named Martin Bryant0you aren't, but someone else out there is.
    No, you missed his point. No one out there is Martin Bryant except Martin Bryant. They are in fact individuals. It's not just a happy philosophy, but a fact that human beings are individuals. They can come together in voluntary association, but you treat them as a hive at your own peril. They aren't. There's no one alive who deserves any ill or good earned by Martin Bryant except Martin Bryant. Period.
    I realize you meant that others might carry out the same actions as Bryant, but this is an important distinction to make. People are always worried about the "next so-and-so." That's why it's such a shock when the next big thing happens, because it's generally not the same as the old things.

    living without an automatic weapon isn't much of an ask.
    Try to see this from another point of view. You think of it as "not much of an ask" because we've already established that you think that if a government orders you to do something you were already planning to do, it's no big deal. It's not much of an ask for you because you aren't interested in automatic weapons and have no use for one. For other people it's quite different, and frankly it's maddening to be told over and over that this or that civil liberty is "not much to ask" in return for offers of imaginary rewards that can't even be delivered--like promises of safety.

    Besides, when did we get onto the topic of automatic weapons? I'm fine with that, mind you, but the gun bans you're defending in Australia do not address automatic weapons. Didn't your government collect pump shotguns? Those are a ways removed from machine guns.

    our welfare system mostly takes care of this.
    I would argue that this shows a lack of thought on the subject. You ARE your welfare system. The money and the philosophy of your welfare bureaus don't just materialize. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    I completely disagree.
    I had a feeling that you might. You should know, I can't help but feel the beginnings of disagreement forming in my mind as well.
    :-D
    Last edited by Don Gwinn; 5/06/2006 4:50pm at .
    *********************************************
  3. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Shoalhaven, Australia
    Posts
    3,155

    Posted On:
    5/06/2006 10:56pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    I am indeed international to you. . . but not an international defender of gun bans. ;)
    well, i suppose an international defender of gun ownership then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    I can't examine the sources. They didn't include the sources. I'd be fascinated to know where they came up with this one, for instance:
    To my knowledge, that didn't even come close to happening. I can't imagine it happening. I've Googled around a bit, and I can't even find a comparison between the two as causes of death, unless you want to compare the number of accidental deaths only. That makes the comparison come out to about 43,000 vs. 600 nationwide. . . . not very similar. Add in homicides and suicides, and the gun rate in 2002 was a little less than 30,000 in 2002 according to this Harvard document. That's not really comparing apples to apples, in my opinion, but this About article puts the auto fatalities at a hair under 43,000. So we're talking quite a jump there in both directions before one passes the other. Keep in mind that the firearm number includes accidents, murder, suicide, and justifiable homicide. Why we care whether someone chooses to commit suicide with a gun as opposed to a rope, I'll never know, but it's in there.
    i see deaths from not only homicide but accidents as just about the same thing in terms of numbers. suicide not so much. but still i'm pretty sure that there has been a very very slight drop in suicide in aus since the new laws.

    the first article i quoted said its source was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, so i had a bit of a look around their website.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publicati...es/pdf/acd.pdf

    some of the things that it says:

    1990

    36 000 gun deaths - 16 000 homicides, 19 000 suicides, 1400 accidentals.

    if you take the suicides into account, then in some states there are slightly more gun deaths than road deaths. however i doubt that the number of suicides in general would be very different with or without guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    As regards international comparisons, they're generally pointless. As we've both observed in this very thread, both gun ownership and crime have more to do with the culture than anything else, certainly more than they have to do with each other. I wouldn't want to live under the Japanese legal system no matter what the crime rate was or what gun I was allowed to own, for instance, nor would I enjoy Singapore. Too few rights, too many ways to get railroaded.
    australia had few guns even before the new laws. most people were never really interested in them in the first place. it seems that those who were collectors were the hardest hit by the changes.

    personally, i'd be happy to live under th japanese legal system. seems to be working fine for them, and from what i can tell you can do and say just about any crazy **** in japan. their porn is insane... rape porn? cartoon pedophilia? christ...

    what do you mean by railroaded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Canada is constantly trotted out. . . but if you do an actual, direct comparison of Canada's cities, small towns and countryside to American cities, small towns and countryside about the same distance from the border, you find that the American places are about the same or safer. You have to add in cities that have no analogues in Canada such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington D.C. to get the big disparities that appear in the total number. Again, culture--the culture of the violent parts of those big American cities is as alien to most Americans as it would be to most Canadians.
    There was a time in 1999-2000 when, if we had simply redrawn the borders to put the city of Detroit in Canada and made no other changes, we'd have switched places and Canada would have had higher rates of most violent crime than the U.S. That's ONE major U.S. city.
    that's an interesting point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Caring about everyone is fine. It doesn't entitle you to run their lives for them.
    i'm really not bothered by the idea that i have to wear seabelts, and i've never met anyone here who was. people just think "ok, fair enough". in the context of my life and upbringing, it makes total sense. i told a friend that i was talking to someone on the internet who didn't like the idea of seatbelt laws, and he just laughed and shook his head. he doesn't see it as an infringement of his personal freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    You can't have it both ways. If you want a law on the books charging them as criminals for their actions, then you see those actions as criminal. If you don't see those actions as criminal, then how on Earth do you justify punishing these people as criminals?
    i HAVE to see it both ways. i don't think they should be smoking, but i don't bother them about it, and there is no way i'm going to drag them to the police station. i see the law as a way of saying "this isn't good for you" and i hope it may discourage some people from taking it up. i don't want people to go to jail for it.

    i hate cigarettes even more, but it's legal. they can't be made illegal, but discouraging their use with education seems to be helping a little. if pot was legal as i was growing up, i'd see it the same way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    No, you missed his point. No one out there is Martin Bryant except Martin Bryant. They are in fact individuals. It's not just a happy philosophy, but a fact that human beings are individuals. They can come together in voluntary association, but you treat them as a hive at your own peril. They aren't. There's no one alive who deserves any ill or good earned by Martin Bryant except Martin Bryant. Period.
    I realize you meant that others might carry out the same actions as Bryant, but this is an important distinction to make. People are always worried about the "next so-and-so." That's why it's such a shock when the next big thing happens, because it's generally not the same as the old things.
    there are less guns in our society now, which means less chance of someone like bryant getting hold of a semi auto. i'm happy with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Try to see this from another point of view. You think of it as "not much of an ask" because we've already established that you think that if a government orders you to do something you were already planning to do, it's no big deal. It's not much of an ask for you because you aren't interested in automatic weapons and have no use for one. For other people it's quite different, and frankly it's maddening to be told over and over that this or that civil liberty is "not much to ask" in return for offers of imaginary rewards that can't even be delivered--like promises of safety.
    not much of a gun culture at all here. we like it that way, want to keep it that way. it's not hurting anyone, and is in my opinion makes them a little safer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Besides, when did we get onto the topic of automatic weapons? I'm fine with that, mind you, but the gun bans you're defending in Australia do not address automatic weapons. Didn't your government collect pump shotguns? Those are a ways removed from machine guns.
    not sure, but i think the pump actions might have been taken away as well.

    you can get stuff like this.

    check this shops catalogue to get an idea of what is legal:

    [QUOTE=Don Gwinn]I would argue that this shows a lack of thought on the subject. You ARE your welfare system. The money and the philosophy of your welfare bureaus don't just materialize. There ain't no such thing
    Last edited by danno; 5/06/2006 11:06pm at .
  4. danno is offline
    danno's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Shoalhaven, Australia
    Posts
    3,155

    Posted On:
    5/07/2006 12:27am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    seems like the end of my post was cut off somehow... i came back and noticed, now i can't edit it. i'll respond to the last bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    I would argue that this shows a lack of thought on the subject. You ARE your welfare system. The money and the philosophy of your welfare bureaus don't just materialize. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
    of course! the money comes from taxes, which i'm very happy to hand over. i'm happy to support the system which has so often supported me.

    i'm pretty sure that i've shown you this article before, but you didn't tell me what you thought of it:

    The Australian/American Gun Law Debate
    By Gabrielle Reilly


    Being an Australian American, I regularly find myself in the middle of the great gun debate between the two countries’ philosophies on gun ownership. Australians want Americans to have fewer guns and stricter rules, and Americans claim the Australian government has removed Australians’ right to defend themselves by implementing such strict gun laws in Australia. It is not until you have lived in both countries and understand the historic build-up and culture that you can really understand the two vastly different attitudes to gun ownership. All sorts of statistics are manipulated to prove both points of view, but I believe the whole issue needs to be accessed from a much more fundamental point of view… geographic location and the risk of predators, the origins of the first settlers, and human nature. Surprisingly, part of my opinion was inspired from watching the creatures that inhabit the Galapagos Islands.

    The Galapagos Islands were formed by underwater volcanoes 500 miles from land. The creatures that inhabit the new and remote islands arrived by ocean or air to an environment with no existing threats so they had no predators… a lot like Australia. The creatures on the Galapagos Islands enjoy a spoilt innocence unlike most creatures around the world. Scientists concluded after researching these creatures that fear is a behavioral adaptation and when it is unnecessary, fear disappears. Perhaps that is why Australians are famous for that line “no worries, mate.”

    When Australia was settled, the authorities (the British soldiers) had the guns and the settlers/convicts, for the most part, obeyed the rules. The Aboriginals in Australia were nomadic and so a fight over land ownership was nominal compared to the gruesome fights America’s first settlers had with the Native American. The majority of settlers to Australia were from the United Kingdom and most people viewed the world in pretty much the same way. Guns never became part of day-to-day life in Australia, which operated under an organized structure from the beginning.

    British authorities took care of security; there was no threat on the island, no threat on the border, and the settlers spoke the same language and held similar ideals. Australians really became very similar to the creatures that enjoy the serenity of the Galapagos Islands and have lived without fear. Australians have never felt the need to have to defend themselves, so they don’t feel like the government is taking any rights away, but in fact, are giving them the right to continue to live without fear. So if the creatures of the Galapagos Islands are happy and live in relative peace, why would you want to introduce a wolf to disrupt the status quo? Then why would you want to introduce guns now in Australia? So let’s review America’s origins and threats.

    America shares borders and has not enjoyed the luxury of being an isolated island. The original settlers came from all over Europe with vastly different ideals. The original 13 states were inhabited with revolutionaries who fought the king, people fleeing from religious persecution, the Puritans, the Quakers… all speaking many different languages and having different ideals. They had to fight for America from the day they arrived between the Minutemen who fought the British to people moving west fighting Native Americans. Heck, then they fought each other.

    Americans had to have guns to protect their families because there was no central control to protect them at that point as they established a new society. This gun-owning culture has been ingrained over the generations and if guns were removed from society there would be an uprising. They do not believe the government should protect them and in fact many feel the need, unlike Australians, that they should be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves from their government as the revolutionaries did when they left England. The second amendment is the right to bear arms and many Americans associate that right with the right to protect their families still.

    So Americans had just cause to evolve with guns. They had predators and people settling the country with different ideals. Americans sought freedom from the British Empire, and Australia became a colony under the British Empire’s protection. Justifiable fear has become ingrained in the American culture, which is why Americans feel as vigilantly that they have a right to own a gun as Australians fight to avoid the introduction of the gun. The most basic premise for the people of both countries is security and knowing their own culture. Both cultures know what the threats are and what offers their family the most security.

    Considering the many issues to contend with, America really had as much diversity as Europe and has managed to create an impressive society over the past few hundred years (although not perfect) for the many different tribes to live alongside each other. Tolerance to different ideals and patriotism to a central ideal of one “America” has been key to that unity and success.

    Without understanding the fundamentally different cultures and attitudes that come only from living in both America and Australia, it is virtually impossible to understand how both sides of this debate do have very valid points. What we need to recognize is that the issues are so different in each country that the same gun law model cannot be used for both countries. You cannot have cookie cutter gun laws in the same way you cannot have cookie cutter democracies. You cannot take someone’s history away, and it is their history that leads them to make the decisions they make. Everyone’s history is so different and there are so many things we just don’t know we don’t know.

    END
    http://www.gabriellereillyweekly.com...ia_america.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    I had a feeling that you might. You should know, I can't help but feel the beginnings of disagreement forming in my mind as well.
    :-D
    oh noes! maybe we should start flaming.
    Last edited by danno; 5/07/2006 12:32am at .
  5. Planktime is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    402

    Posted On:
    5/07/2006 12:30pm


     Style: Arnis, judo, Taichi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Personal responcibility

    Danno,

    It seem to me you would in you Ideal world get rid of anything unsafe. This includes Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Other drugs. This is a fine idea if the world were an ideal place where people were good. The fact is the US has tried most of that and it dosnt work for us. Let me go on to cite some examples. One of the most violent time in US history, criminally speaking, is the era of prohibition. You take a readily available drug that is socially acceptable, add orginized crime looking for a good source of cash, sprinkle in military style automatic weapons. Bake from 1917 to 1933. What you get is a time of serious crime with lots and lots of gun violence.

    Next you have our current war on drugs from about 1981 until today. Same story, with a slightly different twist. This time however you add in a great propaganda machine to help keep people stupid and afraid. Like DARE.... I remeber DARE class where they basically told children that if you smoke pot you life WILL be ruined. So what happened kids smoked pot.....there life wasnt ruined.....well if that didnt happen then maybe the things they said about coke/lsd/heroine/meth/shroom....wernt true either.

    So what happens, well on one level you have civic leaders talking about how it makes our streets safer all the while you have drug grower, manufacturs and importers killing one another (what a shame) the federal government putting people like Tommy Chong in prison for selling pipes across state lines instead of solving the problem.

    How does this relate. Well Aus as you have said didnt have a gun culture before. Great another reason I dont want to move there, between that and having 90% of all the poisonous speices on earth, I am good here in my gun toteing society. That and the fact that our system runs on the idea of personal freedom with responcibility over saftey. I will end this with a quote from one of the greatest Americans. (who if i am not mistaken died a british subject....Nope I am wrong.....DAMN!)

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    Benjamin Franklin 1759
    Last edited by Planktime; 5/07/2006 12:47pm at .
  6. Shawarma is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,457

    Posted On:
    5/07/2006 1:00pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Trying to debate firearm legality by making comparision to the legality of drugs, smokes and booze is really, really stupid. Booze, drugs and smokes only have the ability to hurt the guy smoking/drinking/shooting up. This is a personal responsibility and not really the business of anybody else. You can't directly threaten the lives of other people with this.

    A gun, however, is designed for hurting others.
  7. Planktime is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    402

    Posted On:
    5/07/2006 1:19pm


     Style: Arnis, judo, Taichi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawarma
    Trying to debate firearm legality by making comparision to the legality of drugs, smokes and booze is really, really stupid. Booze, drugs and smokes only have the ability to hurt the guy smoking/drinking/shooting up. This is a personal responsibility and not really the business of anybody else. You can't directly threaten the lives of other people with this.

    A gun, however, is designed for hurting others.
    I disagree. Booze, drugs, and smokes can lead to people hurting each other, they are the motive. There legality is also involved in the crimes associated with them. Have you ever heard do anyone killing anyone else over a sixpack of beer? How about an 8 ball of cocaine?

    Compareing them is not valid in their use, however for the sake of saftey versus rights it is a perfectly resonable argument. Removeing drugs makes no one safer as they are still available, same goes for guns.
  8. Don Gwinn is offline
    Don Gwinn's Avatar

    BJJ wins again!

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Virden, IL
    Posts
    3,569

    Posted On:
    5/07/2006 1:31pm

    supporting member
     Style: Guns

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Shawarma:

    A gun, however, is designed for hurting others.
    People who believe that (and believe that it would be some kind of trump card in seeking to ban guns if it were true) don't know enough about firearms. There are lots and lots of guns out there designed for any number of purposes other than hurting a human being. Many are designed solely for competition, and the majority of those would be, at minimum, awkward to use in combat. Many more are designed solely for hunting one non-human species or another. Many are now designed to drive nails into your roof faster than a hammer ever could and with less strain and fewer injuries to boot.

    However, you will be relieved to know that a sizable minority of my guns were indeed designed to use to fight other human beings. I really could care less what they were designed for. The K31 in my safe was designed to shoot invaders who threatened Switzerland, while the SKS I want to buy was designed to shoot anybody who opposed the Soviet Union (that would be us.) Does that make the K31 morally superior to the SKS?

    The real kicker is that you think you can trump everyone by flatly stating that guns are designed to hurt people. Does it not occur to you that there are a great many people in the world who deserve to be hurt, and who will do damage to other people if they are not hurt? You list your style as "on the mend" but I'm willing to bet that you (unlike me) train in some method of unarmed fighting that was designed solely to hurt people. Does that make you immoral, or is it possible that you too realize that sometimes hurting someone is the best of bad options--and that even if you never have to hurt someone for real, the training is healthy, fun and interesting?

    If it seems like I overreacted to a throwaway comment, maybe I did. I just get tired of hearing that one.
    *********************************************
  9. Planktime is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    402

    Posted On:
    5/07/2006 1:36pm


     Style: Arnis, judo, Taichi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Shawarma:


    People who believe that (and believe that it would be some kind of trump card in seeking to ban guns if it were true) don't know enough about firearms. There are lots and lots of guns out there designed for any number of purposes other than hurting a human being. Many are designed solely for competition, and the majority of those would be, at minimum, awkward to use in combat. Many more are designed solely for hunting one non-human species or another. Many are now designed to drive nails into your roof faster than a hammer ever could and with less strain and fewer injuries to boot.

    However, you will be relieved to know that a sizable minority of my guns were indeed designed to use to fight other human beings. I really could care less what they were designed for. The K31 in my safe was designed to shoot invaders who threatened Switzerland, while the SKS I want to buy was designed to shoot anybody who opposed the Soviet Union (that would be us.) Does that make the K31 morally superior to the SKS?

    The real kicker is that you think you can trump everyone by flatly stating that guns are designed to hurt people. Does it not occur to you that there are a great many people in the world who deserve to be hurt, and who will do damage to other people if they are not hurt? You list your style as "on the mend" but I'm willing to bet that you (unlike me) train in some method of unarmed fighting that was designed solely to hurt people. Does that make you immoral, or is it possible that you too realize that sometimes hurting someone is the best of bad options--and that even if you never have to hurt someone for real, the training is healthy, fun and interesting?

    If it seems like I overreacted to a throwaway comment, maybe I did. I just get tired of hearing that one.
    The best responce EVER! Don I have to say I really admire you.
  10. Neildo is offline
    Neildo's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    6,045

    Posted On:
    5/07/2006 1:43pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: FBSD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
    Many are now designed to drive nails into your roof faster than a hammer ever could and with less strain and fewer injuries to boot.
    Unless of course you happen to slip on the roof and drive a dozen nails into the back of your own head.

    Hey, don't ask me, I saw it on TV once. Seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Planktime
    The best response EVER!
    Yeah dude. The Gwinn knows his ****.
    :new_all_c
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 289101112 1314 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.