I notice the American currency is to be re-designed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13598904/?GT1=8307

is the wording going to be changed too, say something like
In a sod we trust ? :confused:

In God we trust...
All others must pay cash.

In God we trust...
All others must pay cash.

Maybe, "In the pope we hope.":eek:

Maybe, "In the pope we hope.":eek:
Useless slogan for many young boys eh:rolleyes:

shouldn't it be "in guns we trust"?

Surely guns are more of a religion in the USA than a so called make believe God?

Col

so called make believe God?

Col

Why do you find it necessary to stick a hot poke in someone? What motivates you to try and dig a negative response out of people? Why is it important to you to thoughtlessly step on what others value?

Why do you find it necessary to stick a hot poke in someone? What motivates you to try and dig a negative response out of people? Why is it important to you to thoughtlessly step on what others value?

Because being evil allows you to do the evil cackle...and there is no better feeling in the world than crushing someone's hopes and then laughing like Vincent Price.

so called make believe God?

Why do you find it necessary to stick a hot poke in someone? What motivates you to try and dig a negative response out of people? Why is it important to you to thoughtlessly step on what others value?

Yeah, Col?
I value grammatical accuracy. Either God's 'so-called' or he's 'make believe'. Make up your mind, eh? :D

Yeah, Col?
I value grammatical accuracy. Either God's 'so-called' or he's 'make believe'. Make up your mind, eh? :D

No, grammatically it can be both. It's just a little ambiguous. The way he put it actually implies that he believes in God, like a double-negative. "I ain't never believed in God"

Now if he put a comma in between "so-called" and "make believe", then he would be saying what he is trying to say. Without the comma, "so-called" acts as an adjective on "make believe". With the comma, "so-called" acts as an adjective on "God".

the evil cackle...

It's a spin off of the 'Colin Cackle'

:p :p :p

(Just kiddin Col - Hope you had a good week end on the scooter ! :))

Fair point, well made. I stand corrected. ;)

shouldn't it be "in guns we trust"?

Surely guns are more of a religion in the USA than a so called make believe God?

Col
Well of course the reality is that Americans put their faith in the creation, of wealth, that is:rolleyes:

Why is it important to you to thoughtlessly step on what others value?


Now why do I get a reminder of the kettle and black pot here? :confused: :rolleyes:

Now why do I get a reminder of the kettle and black pot here? :confused: :rolleyes:

First I would say that I directed the question to Colin. Second, I would ask you where I have ever stepped on someone values?

First I would say that I directed the question to Colin.

This is a public forum and as such the question is open to all to respond.


Second, I would ask you where I have ever stepped on someone values

Now, are you speaking as an individual or as an American?:confused:

Why do you find it necessary to stick a hot poke in someone? What motivates you to try and dig a negative response out of people? Why is it important to you to thoughtlessly step on what others value?
why would I do that?:confused: I merely stated that in the USA, it seems that guns are a more popular form of religion, instead of the conventional fairy stories called the bible. So the motto should read "in guns we trust" because thats what Yanks do.

If you can tangeably prove there is a god - then feel free, I'm quite happy to listen. Just don't start on this "faith" business.:rolleyes: Come up with some hard facts.

I value not believing in a god person / thing. But I get stepped on by doorstep religion pedlars, I suppose thats different because they are preaching the "good" word, they thoughtlessly step on what I value. . . . .does that make me evil?:rolleyes:

Just kiddin Col - Hope you had a good week end on the scooter Didn't get out on it Ken, busy doing gardening etc etc

Col

This is a public forum and as such the question is open to all to respond.

Yes, this is an open forum, but Colin is the one that made the statement, so I was asking him, personally, why he felt the need to say some of the things he does.




Now, are you speaking as an individual or as an American?:confused:


As an individual

Yes, this is an open forum, but Colin is the one that made the statement, so I was asking him, personally, why he felt the need to say some of the things he does.



open minded, not brainwashed, not Republican, how many reasons are you looking for?
As an individual
the post was aimed at America as a nation, are you saying you're no longer an American?

why would I do that?:confused: I merely stated that in the USA, it seems that guns are a more popular form of religion, instead of the conventional fairy stories called the bible. So the motto should read "in guns we trust" because thats what Yanks do.

Actually, I don't think there should be any motto on it, since it is the almighty Dollar that is the popular deity in America. Capitalism is the favored religion, and the Dollar is the god.

I think it should burn your fingers when you touch it.

Lisa

If you can tangeably prove there is a god ...

We can't even tangeably prove there is a Rich but we keep responding to his posts... :D :D :D

We can't even tangeably prove there is a Rich but we keep responding to his posts... :D :D :D


Good one Ken!! :D :D

Good one Ken!! :D :D

Ah... It weren't nutin' :o

What Haley's latest cutsie thing she's done of late?

why would I do that?:confused: I merely stated that in the USA, it seems that guns are a more popular form of religion, instead of the conventional fairy stories called the bible. So the motto should read "in guns we trust" because thats what Yanks do.

If you can tangeably prove there is a god - then feel free, I'm quite happy to listen. Just don't start on this "faith" business.:rolleyes: Come up with some hard facts.

I value not believing in a god person / thing. But I get stepped on by doorstep religion pedlars, I suppose thats different because they are preaching the "good" word, they thoughtlessly step on what I value. . . . .does that make me evil?:rolleyes:

Col

"tangeably prove there is a God" All that would get accomplish is we end up in a debate. I could turn the question the other way and ask you to tangeably prove He doesn't exist. I fail to see the reasoning behind someone knocks on your door, talks to you about God, that steps on your values, so your going to turn around and do the same to other folks who have not done that to you. It would seem to me that the door knockers would be the ones that you would take it out on.

...in the USA, it seems that guns are a more popular form of religionIn the plethora of definitions available for "religion", they all have something to do with the "supernatural" or a "deity". I do not find that to be an appropriate use...besides if I found someone praying to their gun I'd have to shoot 'em:eek:
I value not believing in a god person / thing. But I get stepped on by doorstep religion pedlars, I suppose thats different because they are preaching the "good" word, they thoughtlessly step on what I value. . . . .does that make me evil?:rolleyes: No, it makes you, like myself, one of the minority that sit back and watch the show.;) Those who are religious and not spiritual do not understand the difference and are more bigoted than they realize.
Didn't get out on it Ken, busy doing gardening etc etc
There's the problem. The wife and I took a nice long ride up in the mountains over the weekend...beautiful. Really puts life into perspective.:)

We can't even tangeably prove there is a Rich but we keep responding to his posts... :D :D :DThat makes your Monday:D :D :D

"tangeably prove there is a God" All that would get accomplish is we end up in a debate. I could turn the question the other way and ask you to tangeably prove He doesn't exist. I fail to see the reasoning behind someone knocks on your door, talks to you about God, that steps on your values, so your going to turn around and do the same to other folks who have not done that to you. It would seem to me that the door knockers would be the ones that you would take it out on.

But if someone run over you in a car, wouldn't hate everyone that drove a car...:confused: :confused:

Ah... It weren't nutin' :o

What Haley's latest cutsie thing she's done of late?

Not too many things - but thanks for asking anyway. She's getting her top 2 teeth in, and now when she smiles, she crinkles her nose so you can see her top teeth. Not sure if that is just coincidence, but it sure is cute. And given the delay on my digital camera, I will NEVER get a picture of it. :)

Lisa

... The wife and I took a nice long ride up in the mountains over the weekend...beautiful. Really puts life into perspective.:)

What do have up there - The Poconos or something like that?

But if someone run over you in a car, wouldn't hate everyone that drove a car...:confused: :confused:

Actually, my step son was, a little over four years ago, and passed away a little over 4 months ago and my answer is...no I don't hate all car drivers.

Actually, my step son was, a little over four years ago, and passed away a little over 4 months ago and my answer is...no I don't hate all car drivers.

I'm so sorry I brought it up...:o

And of course I'm sorry for your loss.

open minded, not brainwashed, not Republican, how many reasons are you looking for?

the post was aimed at America as a nation, are you saying you're no longer an American?

Sometimes, your statements make so little sense. You have rubbed me the wrong way a number of times but I don't hold all of England responsible for your rude behavior.

I'm so sorry I brought it up...:o

And of course I'm sorry for your loss.

No problems, Ken. No way for you know. and thanks.

"tangeably prove there is a God" All that would get accomplish is we end up in a debate. I could turn the question the other way and ask you to tangeably prove He doesn't exist. I fail to see the reasoning behind someone knocks on your door, talks to you about God, that steps on your values, so your going to turn around and do the same to other folks who have not done that to you. It would seem to me that the door knockers would be the ones that you would take it out on.
I thought you'd spring onto that last part of my post, thats why I made it easy for you.:rolleyes: I guessed you'd ignore the first bit. There's little doubt that Yanks worship the gun probobly more so than whatever they feel is a religious god thing.
Its really macho a thing I suppose. . . "look everyone, I have a Magnum gun and can kill someone at 100 yards" as opposed to. . . ."look I carry my little bible and go to church" - who would get beaten up first ???

But I agree with Lisa that maybe the dollar is worshipped more, the way GWB is collecting backhanders, he seems to think so.

Col

I thought you'd spring onto that last part of my post, thats why I made it easy for you.:rolleyes: I guessed you'd ignore the first bit. There's little doubt that Yanks worship the gun probobly more so than whatever they feel is a religious god thing.
Its really macho a thing I suppose. . . "look everyone, I have a Magnum gun and can kill someone at 100 yards" as opposed to. . . ."look I carry my little bible and go to church" - who would get beaten up first ???

But I agree with Lisa that maybe the dollar is worshipped more, the way GWB is collecting backhanders, he seems to think so.

Col

Maybe, just maybe, I sprung on the last part because I don't own a gun, so I don't think about it and it would be easy for me to over look. Besides, the original point was asking you why you find it necessary to throw darts at a God that others chose to believe in.

What do have up there - The Poconos or something like that?Poconos are further north, but we're in the first valley of the Appalachians as you move West, so we can be in several National Forests 10-30 minutes. As far as the term "Mountains" goes, it's what passes for Mountains in PA...nothing like New England or the Rockies. Only about 2500' but enough to get cooler air, more trees, winding roads, and less people.

I think it should burn your fingers when you touch it.


How about tutting and saying 'Do you really need that?', as you hand a bill over to someone? :D

Besides, the original point was asking you why you find it necessary to throw darts at a God that others chose to believe in.
I answered that

Col

Poconos are further north, but we're in the first valley of the Appalachians as you move West, so we can be in several National Forests 10-30 minutes. As far as the term "Mountains" goes, it's what passes for Mountains in PA...nothing like New England or the Rockies. Only about 2500' but enough to get cooler air, more trees, winding roads, and less people.

We're at the southern foothills of the Appalachians here. It is a nice place to get away...:) :) :)

How about tutting and saying 'Do you really need that?', as you hand a bill over to someone? :D

Nah, that isn't strong enough. And I was wrong in the first place. If we go by the dramatization of what happens when you touch a holy object, those people who are basically good would suffer no ill effects. However, if an evil person were to touch it, they would be burned. So that's it - if evil, money-grubbing people touch money, they would get burned. And more serious burns as the denominations of the bills increase. So they have a wallet full of $50's that they can't touch!! **insert evil laugh here**

Lisa

If you can tangeably prove there is a god - then feel free, I'm quite happy to listen. Just don't start on this "faith" business.:rolleyes: Come up with some hard facts.


You initially stated that God was 'make-believe' so the burden of proof is upon you.

If you can't back-up your statement with the facts that you insist on then why should others have to? Try saying something of value...

Okay, let's keep things from getting too idealistic here.

Who DOESN'T want money? :confused: Pink Floyd explains it best: "Money, some may say, is the root of all evil today. But if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're givin' none away."

Rattle this around in your heads: If God were proven to exist, faith would cease to exist.

And, yes, Col and Rich, I like guns. All I've ever wanted was to stand over some thug with my six-shooter and say, "Do you feel lucky, Punk? Well, do ya?" Except, instead of a revolver, it would be a portable Phalanx equipped with rockets instead of bullets. Oh yeah.

Nah, that isn't strong enough. And I was wrong in the first place. If we go by the dramatization of what happens when you touch a holy object, those people who are basically good would suffer no ill effects. However, if an evil person were to touch it, they would be burned. So that's it - if evil, money-grubbing people touch money, they would get burned. And more serious burns as the denominations of the bills increase. So they have a wallet full of $50's that they can't touch!! **insert evil laugh here**

Lisa

Hopefully, that would also somehow encompass credit card transactions and electronic money transfers, as I'm sure some the worst offenders physically touch very little of the folding stuff.

I'm sure some the worst offenders physically touch very little of the folding stuff.

I don't know, if I had millions of dollars I would create a big money-pile of one-hundred dollar bills and roll around in it. :)

I don't know, if I had millions of dollars I would create a big money-pile of one-hundred dollar bills and roll around in it. :)

Yes, but I did say the worst.

I'm sure you're one of the nice guys. :D

I don't know, if I had millions of dollars I would create a big money-pile of one-hundred dollar bills and roll around in it. :)

I'd buy all the land I could in Alabama, put a 12' high electrified cyclone fence around it with razor wire on the top, put a couple dozen dobermans out, and put a double wide moble home smack in the middle of it... :D

http://www.sutherlandfence.com/images/prison2.jpg

http://www.takeourword.com/images/dobermans.jpg

http://www.libertynatural.com/forsale/33a.jpg

I'd buy all the land I could in Alabama, put a 12' high electrified cyclone fence around it with razor wire on the top, put a couple dozen dobermans out, and put a double wide moble home smack in the middle of it... :D Now if it's in Alabama, shouldn't they be Catahoula Leopard Dogs and a 14' x 70':confused:

..oh yeah...and those trucks are supposed to be on blocks!:D

Now if it's in Alabama, shouldn't they be Catahoula Leopard Dogs and a 14' x 70':confused:

..oh yeah...and those trucks are supposed to be on blocks!:D

These are all post million dollar pictures...:D :D

I'd buy all the land I could in Alabama, put a 12' high electrified cyclone fence around it with razor wire on the top, put a couple dozen dobermans out, and put a double wide moble home smack in the middle of it... :D

http://www.sutherlandfence.com/images/prison2.jpg

http://www.takeourword.com/images/dobermans.jpg

http://www.libertynatural.com/forsale/33a.jpg

Oooookay.... and that, Tass, would be one of the not so much nice as scarily-bizarre guys

Oooookay.... and that, Tass, would be one of the not so much nice as scarily-bizarre guys

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Well... Either that or give it away to charity ;)

As a USAmerican, I must point out that many folks are spreading fallacies among their phallacies. (You may interpret the latter to imply that someone is thinking with the wrong part of their anatomy.)

The folks of the USA do not worship guns. We are, however, firm believers in a little thing that Alan Moore said in "V for Vendetta." I'll misquote it here:

People should not fear their government. A government should fear its people.

(I used the QUOTE markers because the forum doesn't have a misquote marker :D )

As part of that concept, this country stays armed. First, in case some idiot country tries to invade us, they had better duck. You never know who has the gun that will drop your general in his tracks. Might even be sweet little old Aunt Matilde from down on the bayou. Second, in case the government in power goes too far, THEY had better duck. We learned that lesson from... the Brits, back in the colonial days.

Does that mean we have a few gun nuts in this country? Yes, it does. You have them in other countries. They are called terrorists or criminals or many other things. The difference is that there, you get to charge them for having the gun. But the gun is an inanimate object. Here, we charge you for USING the gun when you should not have. In other words, we distinguish between the thing and an action using that thing. Does gun control make guns less available? No. All it does is make them less available to people who would not misuse them in the first place. If a guy/gal wants a gun to do wrong with, that person will get the gun. It will happen. Trust me on that one.

We have a saying that SOUNDS tautological, but really isn't: When owning guns is a crime, only criminals will have guns. Why? Because if someone is enough of a miscreant to want to commit violent crimes, a little thing like a gun law won't stop them.

As to whether we worship money? No, there is a difference between coveting and worshiping. From the outside, viewers in other countries cannot tell which we do. But we don't worship money. We covet it. And we envy those who have it when we don't.

As to the amount of worship of God in this country, I don't know. I think we have too much of the WRONG KIND of worship - the "lip service" worship. Entirely too many people claim to believe in the Great Forgiver and then fail to forgive those who believe differently than themselves. A.k.a. hypocrites. But somehow I doubt that this is an exclusive condition in the USA

For example, look at the furor over gay rights here. Instead of being inclusive, the holier-than-thou bunch becomes exclusive. Bullsnot. The aforementioned Great Forgiver would say that his message of love is not for the privileged few, but for all. And he would say something about forgiving not seven times, or seventy times, but seventy times seven. You think?

Another example: Look at the popular movies and the ones you can't even find on shelves. Violence? Easy to find. War movies OR crime movies OR monster movies (real-crime or fantasy). Ten, a hundred, or a thousand bodies litter the floor after a battle. The good guy is bruised and bloody but the bad guys are pulpy messes with more holes than a Swiss cheese.

BUT - let the good guy take his lady to bed with a genuinely gentle act of love where NOBODY gets hurt, and watch the Bible Belt libido bashers go into action. Let a little bit of decently shaped anatomy show and Mrs. Grundy, the neighborhood censor, has a conniption fit. Let a movie character suggest that his/her partner engage in an ordinary sex act, not even a deviant style, and - abracadabra - X rating.

I mean, Geez, which act is more likely to cause kids to be desensitized to an undesirable thing?

I'd buy all the land I could in Alabama, put a 12' high electrified cyclone fence around it with razor wire on the top, put a couple dozen dobermans out, and put a double wide moble home smack in the middle of it... :D

http://www.sutherlandfence.com/images/prison2.jpg


Is that the Berlin wall going up on the border with Mexico? :confused:

Bullsnot
:D :D :D
I hear ya screamin'

Sometimes, your statements make so little sense. You have rubbed me the wrong way a number of times but I don't hold all of England responsible for your rude behavior.
A/ I haven't been anywhere near you
B/ my rudeness is by way of the impression Christian Republican Americans have given the world of themselves
C/ I'm allowed to think for myself and respond as such
D/ Your faith is flawed since you continue to berate me for mine:rolleyes:

Does gun control make guns less available? No.

Whilst disagreeing with some of your comments, I can see your point for most of those you made. The above statement, however, just isn't true.

If guns were illegal, then - by definition - law abiding people would not own one. They may well, at present, own one, but they are not currently risking jail by doing so. That fact, on it's own, would reduce the number of guns out there. Yes, criminals would still get them, but there would have to be less of them out there, since decent people wouldn't break the law by getting one. Unless you're suggesting that everyone who owns one would continue to do so, even if they were suddenly made illegal?

If it's true to say that just one of these people would not wish to break the law then your statement doesn't hold up.

As part of that concept, this country stays armed. First, in case some idiot country tries to invade us, they had better duck. You never know who has the gun that will drop your general in his tracks. Might even be sweet little old Aunt Matilde from down on the bayou. Second, in case the government in power goes too far, THEY had better duck. We learned that lesson from... the Brits, back in the colonial days.



Who the hell is going to invade the most powerfully armed country in the world, Mexico? :rolleyes:
Is Granny Clampit really going to take them on?
As for the government taking too much power, does the name Bush mean anything to you? :confused: :rolleyes:

We can't even tangeably prove there is a Rich but we keep responding to his posts... :D :D :D
Is that because you're American? :cool: :p

If guns were illegal, then - by definition - law abiding people would not own one. They may well, at present, own one, but they are not currently risking jail by doing so. That fact, on it's own, would reduce the number of guns out there. Yes, criminals would still get them, but there would have to be less of them out there, since decent people wouldn't break the law by getting one. Unless you're suggesting that everyone who owns one would continue to do so, even if they were suddenly made illegal?

If it's true to say that just one of these people would not wish to break the law then your statement doesn't hold up.


Would you bring a knife to a gun fight?

Guns are going to be associated with very bad people, I know I want protect my kids, ok my wife too. If someone breaks into your house, can your baseball bat stop a bullet?

There is a article in a small town in the US, where most of all it's residents had concealed weapons permits and carried gun. There was near to zero gun crime. Would you try to rob anyone? I'll look for the article

Would you bring a knife to a gun fight?

Guns are going to be associated with very bad people, I know I want protect my kids, ok my wife too. If someone breaks into your house, can your baseball bat stop a bullet?

In order:

1) No.
and
2) No. Out of curiosity, what baseball bat are you talking about? At what point did I mention one?

I did try to make myself clear enough but obviously didn't manage it. For that I apologise. I was responding to the original assertion made - that if the US had stricter gun controls there would be no fewer guns out there. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions you just asked. I deliberately avoided making any reference to whether or not guns should be legal, since that's an entirely separate argument.

The fact of the matter is that if anything that is currently legal were to be made illegal, there would very soon be less of that item in circulation. Whatever it is - guns being the example used here - many people would not choose to break the law, and so would not choose to own one. Or, as I originally asked, do you believe that every single person who currently owns a gun would continue to do so if they were made illegal? Whether the decrease is huge or tiny is anybody's guess, but nobody can feasibly argue the fact that the number would go down.

I'm not saying that you should put your family at risk, I know some people feel safer if they have a gun close to hand, and I'm not going to get into the whole argument as to whether or not this stuff http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
is propaganda. My point was in direct response to a patently untrue statement made by the original poster.

I was responding to the original assertion made - that if the US had stricter gun controls there would be no fewer guns out there.

The original assertion is this:

Does gun control make guns less available? No.

Which is not the same thing. Quantity of source is not the same thing as ease of access to the source. The thrust of the argument is that accessability to a gun for one that wishes to get hold of one will not be altered by stricter gun controls.

I think this is a reasonable argument considering the current ease of access to illegal drugs in the US.

Or, as I originally asked, do you believe that every single person who currently owns a gun would continue to do so if they were made illegal?

I hope I never see that law.

just remember guns don't kill, it's those damm bullets. Make bullets illegal

The original assertion is this:

Which is not the same thing. Quantity of source is not the same thing as ease of access to the source. The thrust of the argument is that accessability to a gun for one that wishes to get hold of one will not be altered by stricter gun controls.

I think this is a reasonable argument considering the current ease of access to illegal drugs in the US.

Firstly, are you genuinely arguing that it is just as easy to get hold of something which is illegal to own as it is to obtain something that you can openly walk into a shop and buy? Yes, there are plenty of illegal drugs in the country, but do you personally believe that not one single person out of the US population has opted not to take drugs because of their illegality? I find that hard to believe, but if you have stats to back it up, I'll bow to your better knowledge.

Secondly, assuming for one moment that every single current gun owner would choose to break the law - thereby ensuring that the number of guns demanded remains constant - do they all know where to buy an illegal gun? I know it can be done and I know it's not as difficult as people might like, but are you saying that everyone knows how to do it? If they don't then the need for guns would have to drop (supply and demand, it's a business like any other), so there would be less point in criminals supplying the same numbers.

Finally, the thrust of the argument, as you put it isn't the point here. What i was arguing with was the statement that stricter gun controls would not reduce the number of guns. I fail to see how it could do otherwise?

Firstly, are you genuinely arguing that it is just as easy to get hold of something which is illegal to own as it is to obtain something that you can openly walk into a shop and buy?

This depends on the demand of that something. If there is a high demand for that something (which there is for both drugs and guns) then steps will be taken for that demand to be met. Regardless of the legality of that supply.
If you are intent on having a gun then steps will be provided for you to get one. As long as there is some money in it for the trader.


Yes, there are plenty of illegal drugs in the country, but do you personally believe that not one single person out of the US population has opted not to take drugs because of their illegality? I find that hard to believe, but if you have stats to back it up, I'll bow to your better knowledge.

Exactly my point. Illegality does not affect consumption by those who don't care for the law. Demand for guns will remain high regardless of stricter gun control thus illegal steps will be taken to supply that demand. Thus accessability for those who wish to consume will remain unaffected. You've actually supported my argument here.


Secondly, assuming for one moment that every single current gun owner would choose to break the law - thereby ensuring that the number of guns demanded remains constant - do they all know where to buy an illegal gun? I know it can be done and I know it's not as difficult as people might like, but are you saying that everyone knows how to do it? If they don't then the need for guns would have to drop (supply and demand, it's a business like any other), so there would be less point in criminals supplying the same numbers.

The demand has to be great enough for a profit to exist. This doesn't necessarily mean that 'every single current gun owner' has to seek out the supply. Just enough to make a profit. There is a big illegal gun market in the US right now. The demand already exists without new gun laws!

Supply is about appeasing the demand. The illegal traders are intelligent enough to 'educate' those in demand to where the supply is.


Finally, the thrust of the argument, as you put it isn't the point here. What i was arguing with was the statement that stricter gun controls would not reduce the number of guns. I fail to see how it could do otherwise?

You were arguing a different point that had nothing to do with the original assertion. Of course there would be a natural wastage if guns were outlawed. Some would simply not bother to go the illegal route. However the ones who would be prepared to take this route would be catered for and dare I say it these are the people who we need to legislate for.

Wow, one topic gone ary. I guess I shouldn't expect other wise.

As for what money should say, I really don't care. I kinda like the 'In God we Trust'. :D

Col, I know your beliefs and I can understand why you feel the way you do. You were very tramatized, and it has followed you through out your adulthood. Given the chance, I would love to sit with you and explain my side of and how I know that God exists, and perhaps you will change or mind. I wouldn't hold my breath, but it would be nice to debate it with you, in a non-public forum for others to pic apart apart. ;)

Gun...Hmmmm, I've had my rounds with the britsh bloaks here about that. I believe that people should have the rights to carry guns. That is if they have the proper certification and training. No, I do not believe that every moron should be allowed to carry a gun. I feel there should be a set of test, and background checks inorder to carry one. I've heard a great line...'An Armed society is a polite society'. I have no clue who said it, but I liked it.

But, if I really had my way, everyone would carry swords. That to me is a more honorable way of protecting one self. Plus they are far more attractive to the eye.

That is my piece for today, and I will leave you all with this.
I'm still watching you!!!!!

But, if I really had my way, everyone would carry swords. That to me is a more honorable way of protecting one self. Plus they are far more attractive to the eye.


So we can conclude that the US is such a lawless place everybody needs to carry a weapon to defend themselves?:confused:

So we can conclude that the US is such a lawless place everybody needs to carry a weapon to defend themselves?:confused:

We've been down this road before Richy boy! No, it is not a lawless place, and no need to try and twist my words into making it sound like that.

Come on now Rich!!

We've been down this road before Richy boy! No, it is not a lawless place, and no need to try and twist my words into making it sound like that.

Come on now Rich!!
Well you see the arguments being put foward for gun ownership are somewhat fatuous to say the least.
Why is the first reason you all need guns "we need to protect ourselves"?

Well you see the arguments being put foward for gun ownership are somewhat fatuous to say the least.
Why is the first reason you all need guns "we need to protect ourselves"?

Well, I guess the world is an evil place, and we must protect ourselves. You know that is true Rich. It isn't like the 50's you grew up in. :p

It isn't like the 50's you grew up in. :p
I'm pretty sure we never had citizens armed up to the teeth then either, you'll have to ask Col to confirm this of course. :cool:
Now if you're talking about America I think you've had a gun problem since the year dot

I'm pretty sure we never had citizens armed up to the teeth then either, you'll have to ask Col to confirm this of course. :cool:
Now if you're talking about America I think you've had a gun problem since the year dot

Ohh, I'm sorry I guess I should have said the 40's Richy boy!! :p

Yeehaww....we love our guns.

Yeehaww....we love our guns.
More than God? :confused:

More than God? :confused:

Nope, love God More!!!

Nope, love God More!!!
I see, so why the need for a gun to defend yourself? :confused:

I see, so why the need for a gun to defend yourself? :confused:


Yes, yes I see your point. If I love God so much, I wouldn't want to defend myself, and go see him sooner.

But I look at it like this. If God gave me the ability to protect myself, then use it. I'm bettin' this is going to spark a copeous amount of snide remarks, so bring it on.

Yes, yes I see your point. If I love God so much, I wouldn't want to defend myself, and go see him sooner.

But I look at it like this. If God gave me the ability to protect myself, then use it. I'm bettin' this is going to spark a copeous amount of snide remarks, so bring it on.
I don't make snide remarks, I'm rather suprised you accused me of that.
Did God give you the gun?:confused:

I don't make snide remarks, I'm rather suprised you accused me of that.
Did God give you the gun?:confused:

My apolgoies Rich. Was feelin' a bit catty when I posted that. Can you forgive me? :o

God gave us the ability to create them. How we use them is up to us. They are best used to hunt for food and provide for our family. Man has taken the technology and made it what it is today.

They are best used to hunt for food and provide for our family.
Hand guns are used to hunt, somehow I don't think so, do you?
Anyway, don't you have any shops that sell food over there?

Would you bring a knife to a gun fight?

Guns are going to be associated with very bad people, I know I want protect my kids, ok my wife too. If someone breaks into your house, can your baseball bat stop a bullet?
People break into our houses to but since hand gun ownership is illegal the chances of the intruder being armed are millions to one against.
In any case is property worth more than human life, in this case it seems so in a country that calls itself Christian on one hand and yet reduces the value of life to that of property.
Don't you guys have insurance on your property, other than a gun under the pillow?

You initially stated that God was 'make-believe' so the burden of proof is upon you.

If you can't back-up your statement with the facts that you insist on then why should others have to?

If something is make believe, like a fairy story, and someone else thinks it's true, its not up to me to prove what millions of people believe (that it is total fabrication), its up to the person who is saying something does exist when it clearly doesn't.

You obviously can't prove your god exists otherwise you would have done it by now. (what with you being a good ol' American an' all;) :D)

Try saying something of value...
If you took the time to read my posts instead of being so picky, you would see I have posted many valuable comments.:rolleyes:

KEN - if that's a mobile home - where are the wheels?:confused: and how do you tow it from campsite to campsite? or is it another strange US naming thing, like the world series:rolleyes:

Col

And, yes, Col and Rich, I like guns.
Why? is it a macho thing, like I suggested earlier?:confused:

I have said before, the USA appears (to us outsiders) to worship 3 things, guns, cars and money. We get the impression every family has at least 2 cars - each the size of a small village.

Col

You know, a friend of mine had a brilliant (or at least insane) idea for a perfect society protected with weapons. It goes as such:

Everyone gets one grenade. Just one. You cant get any more. And you can use it whenever you wish, but then you're defenseless. If you die without using it, your grenade gets passed on to your children/relatives.

The strongest families would be the ones with the most grenades.

I don't know why grenades are the weapons of choice, but it was his idea not mine! I can see it now, people with grenade medallions walking the streets. Fake Grenade merchants peddling their wares.

Of course there's always the Chris Rock method - make the bullets for guns incredibly expensive, so it becomes unprofitable to kill anyone unless for protection.

We get the impression every family has at least 2 cars - each the size of a small village.

Col


My family of four has six cars.:eek: A work-truck, an expedition for family vacation's, my mom's car, my dad's car, my sister's car, and my car. :D :D

I don't make snide remarks, I'm rather suprised you accused me of that.
snide-supercilious: expressive of contempt

:confused: What surprised you?

I own guns. I do not sit in the corner, listening to the voices, cleaning the guns, awaiting the next armed assailant. I have many different types of guns. They all have a purpose, just as a flat-blade screwdriver is different from a phillips-head, from an allen wrench, from a box wrench, etc. I do not look at any one of my guns thinking "I'll slaughter the next *#$&*&$ that breaks in here" or "Dont *#&$* with me, this'll fix ya". Although, any one of the weapons contained in my cabinet would be suitable for such a task...but so would my machete, utility knife, car, truck, lawnmower, or any one of the spoons in the silverware drawer if I was sufficiently motivated.:eek: If you don't understand, that's fine. I don't understand half of the culture of Britain, but guess what...I'm not British, I don't have to. Can't you just accept it as a cultural difference of a country which was "tamed from the wilderness" in a time that the gun was prevalent as opposed to swords, spears, and armor?

Or, you could assert that Britain learned the dangers of having an armed society by the end of 1776 and your society has developed such an aversion to private weapons out of a government's fear of losing their own island.:eek:

Or, you could assert that Britain learned the dangers of having an armed society by the end of 1776 and your society has developed such an aversion to private weapons out of a government's fear of losing their own island.:eek:

Surely not - :eek:

Maybe it's just the royals that fear losing it - :confused:

I wonder how many guns they have?

.-----------------TTTT_-----_______
/''''''''''(______O] ----------____ \______/]_
__...---'"""\_ --'' Q ___________@
|''' ._ _______________=---------"""""""
| ..--''| l L |_l |
| ..--'' . /-___j ' '
| ..--'' / , ' '
|--'' / ` \
L__' \ -
- '-.
'. /
'-./

Has this become a gun thread?

Or, you could assert that Britain learned the dangers of having an armed society by the end of 1776 and your society has developed such an aversion to private weapons out of a government's fear of losing their own island.:eek:

Surely not - :eek:

Maybe it's just the royals that fear losing it - :confused:

I wonder how many guns they have?

Has this become a gun thread?of course!:D
money(everybody wants it) -> Religion (no one understands it) -> guns (need them to acquire more money and convince the infidels of religion)

stick around, I'm sure we'll see:

guns ->Iraq (needed guns to steal the oil) -> environmentalism(we needed all the oil 'cause W said "screw Kyoto") -> money (...because Kyoto is too expensive for the current economy) -> religion ('cause god said so) -> guns( I said, god said so) -> ad infinitum

:D

This depends on the demand of that something. If there is a high demand for that something (which there is for both drugs and guns) then steps will be taken for that demand to be met. Regardless of the legality of that supply.
If you are intent on having a gun then steps will be provided for you to get one. As long as there is some money in it for the trader.

The key sentence being that last one. If the number of people who wanted guns dropped, the number available would drop. If, as I suggested, not everyone would continue to own a gun if they were illegal, then unless the criminals bought extra, to take up the slack in the arms trade, then the number out there would have to drop. Nothin you've said here contradicts my original argument.


Exactly my point. Illegality does not affect consumption by those who don't care for the law. Demand for guns will remain high regardless of stricter gun control thus illegal steps will be taken to supply that demand. Thus accessability for those who wish to consume will remain unaffected. You've actually supported my argument here.

Yes, as I keep saying, the people who are willing to break the law will still get guns. The point I'm trying to make is that not everyone will break the law. Therefore, the number will have to go down. Not supporting anything other than my original contention.



The demand has to be great enough for a profit to exist. This doesn't necessarily mean that 'every single current gun owner' has to seek out the supply. Just enough to make a profit. There is a big illegal gun market in the US right now. The demand already exists without new gun laws!

Supply is about appeasing the demand. The illegal traders are intelligent enough to 'educate' those in demand to where the supply is..

True, but to go back to the original point, not everyone will choose to break the law. It makes no difference if the gun dealers are selling their stock from an ice cream van playing a tune. The fact remains that if people know owning one is illegal, they will not all buy one. The demand will lessen, so the supply will reduce.


You were arguing a different point that had nothing to do with the original assertion. Of course there would be a natural wastage if guns were outlawed. Some would simply not bother to go the illegal route. However the ones who would be prepared to take this route would be catered for and dare I say it these are the people who we need to legislate for.

Please don't tell me what I was or wasn't doing. The point I was arguing was that gun control would reduce the number of guns out there. Since the original statement was (and I quote) "Does gun control make guns less available? No." I think my argument was perfectly on-point. Of course criminals who want them will still get them, that applies to anything, but that wasn't what I was arguing with. If less people choose to own something, the supplier drops his stock levels, thereby lowering the overall number available.

Do you see that I'm not arguing with the fact that there are plenty of illegal guns out there? I am arguing with one statement made in the original posting which just doesn't hold true.

I own guns.
why?

I have many different types of guns. They all have a purpose,
How many, and for what purpose are they for?

Can't you just accept it as a cultural difference of a country which was "tamed from the wilderness" in a time that the gun was prevalent as opposed to swords, spears, and armor?
It seems that culturally, many of your countrymen (and women) still think its an untamed wilderness. Hence the need for some to go round armed to the teeth and ready to kill anything that steps over their property boundaries.

From various US posters here, I get the impression that Americans are paranoid of someone breaking in to their house, thats why they are ready to kill without question. Number one on the list is always "for protection". . . . against what?

Col

How many, and for what purpose are they for?
Col

You know like Homer Simpson, one gun to change channels on the TV, one to open his beer.

No, he's probably talking about hunting one for deer, one for turkey, one to scare the neighbors and so on

why?'cause god said so :rolleyes: How many, and for what purpose are they for?more than a couple but less than too many. Shall I really start listing the normally accepted uses for various gauges, caliburs, and configurations or are you being rhetorical?:confused: Number one on the list is always "for protection". . . . against what? the French

Of course criminals who want them will still get them, that applies to anything, but that wasn't what I was arguing with. If less people choose to own something, the supplier drops his stock levels, thereby lowering the overall number available.

I just see this point as being rather mute. An individual who wishes to gain a gun illegally is the irresponsible law breaker. They are the ones that the proposed legislation is aimed at. The supply will be made available to satisfy their demands illegally, that is, regardless of legislation. Availability to the law breakers, which is the relevant issue here, will not drop.


Do you see that I'm not arguing with the fact that there are plenty of illegal guns out there? I am arguing with one statement made in the original posting which just doesn't hold true.

If you want to hold to the statement that they will be less available to the law abiding citizen then yes because the illegal route is closed to them. Why on earth would I argue against this point? But how is this relevant?

The legislation is aimed at the law breakers, to reduce gun-related crime. The availability to the law breakers can only increase because of the sole recourse to get guns illegally when the legal route has been closed. Thus the illegal supply will increase.

its up to the person who is saying something does exist when it clearly doesn't.

Unfortunately this isn't what happened. Nobody said God exists before you said He didn't. If you're not prepared to offer the facts that you demand of others to support this assertion why should anybody else?

If I say X is Y, and you say no it isn't. It's up to me to prove to you why X is Y. Otherwise what would be the point of theory?

You obviously can't prove your god exists otherwise you would have done it by now. (what with you being a good ol' American an' all;) :D)

I said nothing about anything being provable. Just where the burden of proof lay.


If you took the time to read my posts instead of being so picky, you would see I have posted many valuable comments.:rolleyes:

I know you have, but for me, this was not one of those occasions.

I would like you to explain though, how I can be both picky and non-attentive to your posts though ;)

Unfortunately this isn't what happened. Nobody said God exists before you said He didn't. If you're not prepared to offer the facts that you demand of others to support this assertion why should anybody else?

If I say X is Y, and you say no it isn't. It's up to me to prove to you why X is Y. Otherwise what would be the point of theory?C'mon Dan, you can do better than that. That's like saying if I claim that Bigfoot, Champ, and Nessie doesn't exist it's up to me to prove they don't as opposed to their supporters proving they do. Your assertion does not apply to non-tangeable ideas.

Why on earth would I argue against this point?

I have no idea at all why you're arguing against this point, but you have been.

But how is this relevant?.

It's relevant because it was the sentence that I was disputing. I didn't enter a conversation about whether or not people should have the right to own guns for protection or to feel tough or to hunt or for any other reason.

The original poster laid out a set of statements, some of which I agreed with, some of which I didn't. The single statement I was commenting on was the one I've mentioned repeatedly. Yes, I know his overriding argument wasn't solely about legal gun ownership, but the point being made was diluted somewhat by making a sweeping and incorrect statement amongst the other points.

C'mon Dan, you can do better than that. That's like saying if I claim that Bigfoot, Champ, and Nessie doesn't exist it's up to me to prove they don't as opposed to their supporters proving they do. Your assertion does not apply to non-tangeable ideas.

I don't need to Bodi. :)

Look at it this way.

I'm trying to prove that Z is true.
It is a crucial part of my supporting argument to this that X is Y.
Thus it is my burden to show that X is Y.

Let's apply that to this post.

Surely guns are more of a religion in the USA than a so called make believe God?

Well if this assertion is to be shown as true then any supporting argument for it must be shown to be true also. Thus, God must be shown to be 'make believe' simply because it is tied (albeit badly) to an assertion that 'guns are more of a ...'


Perhaps one should not be tied to the other in this way. That's my opinion. That's why I said it was a valueless statement.

I have no idea at all why you're arguing against this point, but you have been.

I was assuming the context of gun misuse which is the reason for stricter gun controls. If you ignore that context then there is nothing wrong with your argument.

I was assuming the context of gun misuse which is the reason for stricter gun controls. If you ignore that context then there is nothing wrong with your argument.

Thanks. I shall continue to stay away from the issue of illegal guns.

So, if the US Dept of Justice is to be believed [Guns Used in Crime: Firearms, Crime, and Criminal Justice-Selected Findings. No. 5. Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 1995. Publication no. NCJ-148201.], in 1995:

20,540 people in the US committed suicide by using firearms
1,610 people were killed accidentally by firearms.

That's just over 22,000 people who, as far as we know, were innocent and law-abiding and who died as a result of legally-owned guns.

Yes, it could be argued that at least some of the suicides would have died anyway, via other means, but shooting oneself is a pretty surefire way to go, whilst taking an overdose may be 'fixable'. Also, it is far easier to go out on a spur-of-the-moment impulse, using a gun.

As far as the accidents go, people are going to have accidents with whatever they use (power tools, cars, etc.). Guns, however, are designed to do one thing, so shouldn't people be more careful around them? If they can't be, shouldn't they be prevented from having one?

Now, it is theoretically possible that twice that number, ten times that number, or, hell, a hundred times that number feel safer each year as a result of owning a gun. That's scant consolation, however, to the ones who died and their family. Perhaps a system of gun control - not banning guns altogether, but controlling them by more closely monitoring the sort of person who can own one - would have prevented at least some of those deaths?

Matt:

The fact of the matter is that if anything that is currently legal were to be made illegal, there would very soon be less of that item in circulation.

If the exception proves the lie, then consider controlled subtance laws. Category A and B drugs (USA FDA schedule A & B) are illegal but the availability is still there.

My contention is that when someone wants a gun, they will find a way to get one. Without concern for the law that says they shouldn't have one. Oh, it might take them longer. But if they have to have the equalizer, they'll get it by hook or by crook. All gun control laws do is slow down the process for the good guys. But the bad guys don't have that problem.

Matt:

If the exception proves the lie, then consider controlled subtance laws. Category A and B drugs (USA FDA schedule A & B) are illegal but the availability is still there.

Is there any evidence to suggest that there wouldn't be more drug use if these substances were legal?

I'm pretty sure that the criminals in the UK and various other countries would love to have guns and I know that a lot of them do, but the fact remains that the difficulty of obtaining one, coupled with the fact that gun use isn't accepted as the norm goes a long way toward keeping the numbers down.

My contention is that when someone wants a gun, they will find a way to get one. Without concern for the law that says they shouldn't have one. Oh, it might take them longer. But if they have to have the equalizer, they'll get it by hook or by crook. All gun control laws do is slow down the process for the good guys. But the bad guys don't have that problem.

Which I don't disagree with, but which still raises the question of legally owned guns being used in an improper manner (see my last posting).

ANYTHING can be used for good, evil, or neutral activities. Guns, drugs, needles (sewing OR hypodermic), apple pie, ...

What bothers me is that folks continuously confuse the object with an action based on that object.

Let's go back to first principles. According to the Great Forgiver, a stone cannot get into heaven. Why? Because it has no choices. It is the choices that we make that define us. A gun has no choice. It is pointed by its holder; the trigger is pulled by its holder; the bullet goes where it was aimed; it expends its energy where it meets resistance. Guns are not evil things. PEOPLE are evil things.

When you take away guns, you don't take away evil. BUT by taking away guns you make it APPEAR to others that you have done something good. To which I say, until you can address the evil PEOPLE in the world, you have done nothing. GET OFF the gun control kick and look at what you are really saying. By advocating gun control you show that you are TOO LAZY to address the real problem.

In a perfect world, there would be no crime and no need for guns except as recreational devices. Skeet/target shooting and the like.

In a SLIGHTLY less than perfect world, everyone carries a gun and every evil person knows it. Therefore, the evil they would perpetrate is stayed by fear.

In the world YOU are trying to build, evil persons with guns know they will not be opposed with deadly force. So they do what they damned well please. Including express all the violence within themselves. Because they see themselves as the wolves among the sheep.

I personally see a world with lots of guns as somewhere in between the world you want to build and the ideal world.

By the way, that's one of the reasons why I feel it is safe to say that worship must be down world-wide. Fear of God stopped folks from doing harm to others - but now it appears to me that the fear is no longer there. It must be because true belief is down. With all the negatives thereof.

I personally see a world with lots of guns as somewhere in between the world you want to build and the ideal world.


I have to say that I don't share your vision of this fear-based utopia.

how about a world with great gun safety and awareness? that's what I'm talking about

Nobody said God exists before you said He didn't.

I think you need to go back a little here Danny, would you like a list of the posts here that said he did, even before Col. joined the forum.
Please do a little research before jumping in with such rash remarks:rolleyes:

Firstly, thanks for the insults. I don't consider myself or my thought processes to be 'lazy', as I believe my arguments have shown. I won't bother asking why you dropped down to the level of name-calling, as there are already too many threads that have degenerated to that level.


Fear of God stopped folks from doing harm to others - but now it appears to me that the fear is no longer there. It must be because true belief is down. With all the negatives thereof.

When? At what time ever in human history was violence not committed?

Even if that statement were true, surely it only applies if the God or Gods you happen to worship say that killing is wrong? What about the thuggee sect? Unquestionably religious people who embrace killing, as they see a valid reason for it, within the context of their own religion. Muslim fundamentalists? The KKK? Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland?

Perhaps you mean everyone should be made to have the same religious beliefs? Christianity, for example? 'Cos removing 'wrong' religions has been tried before, with little success.

Also, some of the worst atrocities ever committed have also been carried out by Christians who believed they were doing God's will (the Inquisition, for example). There is little evidence that believing in 'God's vengeance' or whatever you wish to call it, will, on it's own, lead someone to be less violent. Least of all if you also believe that the people you are killing are dying at his behest. The best you can hope for in the real world is to minimize the damage that violent people can do. Controlling the availablity of weaponry is one way to do this.

Another way, as you suggested, would be to arm everyone. That would work up to a point. That point being the second that someone develops a bigger gun or lashes out in a fit of passion (when fear of consequences doesn't enter into it). Did the arms race and the cold war just pass you by? The East and the West weren't peaceful because of any love or fear of some divine entity. It was fear of each other, plain and simple, and if one side had been able to find a foolproof way to kill the other there were plenty of lunatics who would have taken it. Arming everyone doesn't cure anything, it makes people more inventive and raises the scale of the problem.

Just where the burden of proof lay.


The burden of proof lies with those who use their belief in fairy tales as a justifiable excuse for their actions.
Now why does the name GWB spring straight to mind? :rolleyes:

I think you need to go back a little here Danny, would you like a list of the posts here that said he did, even before Col. joined the forum.
Please do a little research before jumping in with such rash remarks:rolleyes:

If you could provide the posts contained within this thread, then that would be, how can I put it, relevant ;)

Now why does the name GWB spring straight to mind? :rolleyes:

...because you're obsessed with him :confused:

If you could provide the posts contained within this thread then that would be, how can I put it, relevant ;)
It was an open conversation, I don't see where Colin said it was restricted to this thread, do you? :confused:

[ Can't you just accept it as a cultural difference of a country which was "tamed from the wilderness" in a time that the gun was prevalent as opposed to swords, spears, and armor?


Does that taming include the natives who just happened to get wiped out on the way by gun ho lust?
Still you never know in a couple of centuries you may all become civillised:rolleyes:

It was an open conversation, I don't see where Colin said it was restricted to this thread, do you? :confused:

I don't see where Colin or yourself have ever restricted yourselves to the thread at hand. Short attention spans perhaps :confused:

...because you're obsessed with him :confused:
Oddly enough no, and within the context of this thread, it was because he stated quite openly that God was on his side during the invasion of Iraq, just like every other bloody homicidal maniac throughout history.:mad:
You proove that God had a hand in it and it was his will or that he or she exists at all :eek:

Fear of God stopped folks from doing harm to others - but now it appears to me that the fear is no longer there. It must be because true belief is down. With all the negatives thereof.

I think the fear of God is down because the Church doesn't have a license to burn people anymore. :mad:

You proove that God had a hand in it and it was his will or that he or she exists at all :eek:

Why should I, it was Georgey's claim :confused:

Short attention spans perhaps :confused:
No it's called the art of conversation, do you guys have a list of restricted subject matter when going out with say friends for the evening?:rolleyes: :p

Why should I, it was Georgey's claim :confused:
So you don't believe it then? :confused:

No it's called the art of conversation, do you guys have a list of restricted subject matter when going out with say friends for the evening?:rolleyes: :p Uh...yes, actually. With all but the best of friends, the rule of thumb is no discussion of politics or religion and if you consider sports to be a close relative of either of the two, leave that off the table as well. (Of course, this rule normally only applies when visiting drinking establishments or activities in which alcohol will be part of the festivities)

No it's called the art of conversation, do you guys have a list of restricted subject matter when going out with say friends for the evening?:rolleyes: :p

No, but we do consider an individual changing the topic at will to upset the flow of the evening...:D

No, but we do consider an individual changing the topic at will to upset the flow of the evening...:D
then you need to put less water in the glass:p

So you don't believe it then? :confused:

What Georgey's claim? What the hell do you think I am, brainwashed or something? :p

Uh...yes, actually. With all but the best of friends, the rule of thumb is no discussion of politics or religion and if you consider sports to be a close relative of either of the two, leave that off the table as well. (Of course, this rule normally only applies when visiting drinking establishments or activities in which alcohol will be part of the festivities)
But that only leaves women as a debatable subject:eek: :D

But that only leaves women as a debatable subject:eek: :Dof course...we can't watch them on TV, you know:D

What Georgey's claim? What the hell do you think I am, brainwashed or something? :p
A lone voice out of millions, well it's been a long hard uphill struggle, but we're getting there.
Now where's the other 100 million? :cool: :p

of course...we can't watch them on TV, you know:D
Is that why you have the largest number of porno sites in the World, that's the whole World by the way, not just the American world?:p

Is that why you have the largest number of porno sites in the World, that's the whole World by the way, not just the American world?:pThen how come all the porn I download is either in Dutch or that crappy Italian voice-over stuff?:eek:

Then how come all the porn I download is either in Dutch or that crappy Italian voice-over stuff?:eek:
They nicked it and have overdubbed it, it's thirty years out of date or you're not allowed to download from American sites in the States.
I suspect the latter

Matt:

Arming everyone doesn't cure anything, it makes people more inventive and raises the scale of the problem.

Actually, I don't disagree with that. BUT... eventually what happens is that folks get tired of the escalation or realize that it is a never-ending cycle as long as you never stand down.

Let me work my argument from a different angle, if you don't like the previous presentation. The solution is to educate people that violence is not the answer. BUT the problem with that solution is that until all sides embrace (not just verbally acknowledge) that fact, you need to be able to deter the other side from trying to prove to you that violence IS TOO the answer, just like a petulant child who is going to have his way come Hell or High Water. (Here in New Orlean's, we've had the "high water" part, and it was Hell anyway, so to me that has become a less meaningful phrase.)

So maybe what I'm trying to say is that as long as folks THINK that violence is the answer, you must be prepared to meet violence with violence. And therein lies the REAL task. Convincing others that without violence, there IS such a thing as a win-win solution. WITH violence, there is only win-lose or worse, lose-lose.

Therefore, if you want REAL gun control, ignore guns and go after the real problem - the people who use those guns inappropriately. By the way, this is true at the personal level and at the level of terrorist states.

'cause god said so :rolleyes:
more than a couple but less than too many. Shall I really start listing the normally accepted uses for various gauges, caliburs, and configurations or are you being rhetorical?:confused:
the French

Bod - If my questions were rhetorical I would say so. I like many UK people have never seen a real gun, so I'm interested in your way of thinking:rolleyes:

Repeat - why do you need guns?

How many have you got? and for what purpose?

Who are you wanting protection from? (apart from the French)

Dan-Cat, nobody has successfully proved god exists, therefore until something tangeable comes along to change that, one must assume god does not exist and its all a fairy story. Its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to prove it does if thats what you think. . . . . .and you can't prove it, which is why you're squirming out of it with these picky nonsensical comments about x, y and z;)

There are many people (mostly Yanks) who believe god exists but have no proof.

I would like you to explain though, how I can be both picky and non-attentive to your posts though

Its a clever trick that you have mastered very well. ;)


Col

Bod - If my questions were rhetorical I would say so. I like many UK people have never seen a real gun, so I'm interested in your way of thinking:rolleyes: That comes as close as I've ever seen to an honest, non-combative question on the subject, so I'll humor you :D (Although the rolleyes leads me to believe I probably shouldn't)

This is not a complete list, but enough to make a point:

A Compressed CO2 pellet pistol - comes in real handy from removing those nasty little squirrels from the attic. No holes in the roof, but the squirrel is removed...and that's exactly why I bought it (traps don't work on the *#$&* things and they'll chew through the wires)

.22 cal rifles w and w/o scopes - small, rimfire cartridge, sufficient for small game (squirrels, rabbits, turkey, groundhogs, etc). Relatively quiet with no recoil to speak of, so it's also a favorite for target practice or general "plinking" around.

Shotguns (various gauges) - used mainly for small game if you're not accurate enough to use the .22(:eek: ) or if you are concerned about distance (shot is only dangerous for about 250ft whereas rifles will go up to 2 miles). Also good for hunting geese, pheasant, grouse, etc. where the quarry is fast and usually moving. The smaller the number of the gauge, the bigger the wad of shot thrown.

Large Caliber rifles (in the .20-.30 cal range or roughly 7-10mm) Large Game, long distance. Elk, moose, deer. Careful with those...you'll hurt your little arm:eek:

I have a Walther PPKS (9mm Kurtz) and a .45acp in the pistol rack. Applications range from just "plinking" to kill shots--I reload my own ammo and it's much cheaper than using a second round from a rifle.

Who are you wanting protection from? (apart from the French)I was trying to be funny...damn British humor.:rolleyes: You'll notice that there is no mention of protection anywhere in that list because I don't see them that way (Although any one would do the job). I do not live in fear, I am not paranoid, and I don't sleep with a gun under the pillow. I hunt and I enjoy target shooting (skeet, bench, freestyle)...and before you ask, I don't use silhouettes, just regular bullseyes.

Any further insight you'd like?:)

Is this arsenal kept securely locked up and do you supply the national guard? :rolleyes:

I have a Walther PPKS

I believe these can also be used to kill SPECTRE agents. ;)

I believe these can also be used to kill SPECTRE agents. ;)
How about insects and bloody seagulls:mad:

Is this arsenal kept securely locked upAlways.
do you supply the national guard? :rolleyes:Hmph! Politely answer someone's question, get a "rolleyes" and sarcasm...coming from you, Rich, I'm not surprised.

Remind me again why no one takes you seriously:rolleyes:

I believe these can also be used to kill SPECTRE agents.I have to admit...I'm a fan. But the 'S' denotes stainless steel as opposed to 007's standard blueing.
How about insects and bloody seagulls...and lippy Brits :eek:

How about insects and bloody seagulls:mad:

One of the lesser-known storylines, perhaps? :confused:

That comes as close as I've ever seen to an honest, non-combative question on the subject, so I'll humor you
Nice that you decided to take the time to answer.

Thank you


Col

Dan-Cat, nobody has successfully proved god exists, therefore until something tangeable comes along to change that, one must assume god does not exist and its all a fairy story.

I hate to sound picky...:D

On that line of thinking how do you discover anything?

What would have been the point of european adventurers sailing across the Atlantic in search of discovery? They didn't make such assumptions did they?


Its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to prove it does if thats what you think. . . . . .and you can't prove it, which is why you're squirming out of it with these picky nonsensical comments about x, y and z;)

Errm you were the one who brought up the idea of God's existance or not as the case may be. God's existance has got nothing to do with any of my arguments only with yours .... That's why you have to support it with facts.


There are many people (mostly Yanks) who believe god exists but have no proof.

Any facts to show that the majority of theists in the world abide in the US?

EDIT: You see without proof I'm going to have to assume that this is a fairy tale ;)


Its a clever trick that you have mastered very well. ;)
Col

I'll take that as a compliment :D

I hate to sound picky...:D
no change there then

On that line of thinking how do you discover anything?
What would have been the point of european adventurers sailing across the Atlantic in search of discovery? They didn't make such assumptions did they?
I have no idea what posessed them to do it.



Errm you were the one who brought up the idea of God's existance or not as the case may be. God's existance has got nothing to do with any of my arguments only with yours .... That's why you have to support it with facts.
I just said it was make believe



Any facts to show that the majority of theists in the world abide in the US?
I have no idea how many "theists" there are in the USA.



I'll take that as a compliment :D

It was

Col

It was


Excellent. Thank you. You won't mind if I don't change my spots then will you :p

I hate to sound picky...:D

On that line of thinking how do you discover anything?

What would have been the point of european adventurers sailing across the Atlantic in search of discovery? They didn't make such assumptions did they?

:D

Attempts can be made to prove or diisprove any assumption. I would be perfectly justified in assuming that my chair would burn if I held a match to it. That assumption could be proven to be true or false by my actually trying it.

If I assume God doesn't exist, it's just as valid as someone else assuming he does. Since the fact can't be proven or disproven, it comes down soley to faith. If any decisions are to be made solely on proven fact, one must assume God doesn't exist, however if they are to also take into account unproven beliefs that may be factual, one must assume he does.

The latter is a slightly more risky stance to take, since there are people out there who believe in many different gods, ghosts, aliens, etc. Many of these people look to such things for 'protection'. Unless one is willing to take the stance that someone else's beliefs - although no more unproven - are somehow less valid than their own, in order to not discriminate against these individuals, the slogan on the money would have to read 'In things we trust'', or provide an itemised list.

Just a thought. :D

Attempts can be made to prove or diisprove any assumption. I would be perfectly justified in assuming that my chair would burn if I held a match to it. That assumption could be proven to be true or false by my actually trying it.

Yes and that is why I think the adventurers decided to launch themselves into the unknown. They decided not to assume. Look at what they achieved.

If I assume God doesn't exist, it's just as valid as someone else assuming he does.

Yes, so as a supporting argument it's worthless because of what you say here:

Since the fact can't be proven or disproven, it comes down soley to faith.

If any decisions are to be made solely on proven fact, one must assume God doesn't exist, however if they are to also take into account unproven beliefs that may be factual, one must assume he does.

I would argue that it is the attempt to gain the proof that yields the positive results. Which is why I argue that the assumption route is wrong. ie. The world is flat because you can't prove otherwise so issue the command to Columbus to turn back after 5 days.


The latter is a slightly more risky stance to take, since there are people out there who believe in many different gods, ghosts, aliens, etc. Many of these people look to such things for 'protection'. Unless one is willing to take the stance that someone else's beliefs - although no more unproven - are somehow less valid than their own, in order to not discriminate against these individuals, the slogan on the money would have to read 'In things we trust'', or provide an itemised list.

Just a thought. :D

Ye Gods :eek: you applied your post to the original topic. Nice one :p

the slogan on the money would have to read 'In things we trust'', or provide an itemised list.

Just a thought. :D
I said it should be "In guns we trust", I thought that was more relevant (to Americans) than any religious god, and anyway isn't saying "god" a bit discriminatory in a multi-cultural society like the US? It gives the impression the christian god is the only one worth believing in, when in fact we all know thats wrong.

Col

Ye Gods :eek: you applied your post to the original topic.


I know, I'm letting the side down :o

Remind me again why no one takes you seriously:rolleyes:


'cause they're scared, afraid of the truth, can't argue otherwise, are Republicans, how long a list do you want? :confused:

...and lippy Brits
oh I think you'll find lippy Brits experts at defending themselves and we know you Yankies don't fare well against those who shoot back:cool:

and anyway isn't saying "god" a bit discriminatory in a multi-cultural society like the US? It gives the impression the christian god is the only one worth believing in, when in fact we all know thats wrong.

Col
Not under GWB, you can buy your way out of prison by converting to Christianity under his leadership, unless you're locked up in Gitmo simply for looking like a foreigner that is:rolleyes:

I said it should be "In guns we trust", I thought that was more relevant (to Americans) than any religious god, and anyway isn't saying "god" a bit discriminatory in a multi-cultural society like the US? It gives the impression the christian god is the only one worth believing in, when in fact we all know thats wrong.

Col

Maybe, just to play safe, we could make that last bit:

'We - meaning one or more of us but in no way inferring all of us - know - meaning believe, since it is up to the individual to hold his or her own opinion about the existence and/or individual merits of God, Buddha, Kali, ghosts, goblins, the cookie monster, and any/or any other deities, beings or forces, proven to exist or otherwise - that's wrong - or, indeed right, depending the individual's own viewpoint, life experiences, gullibility and/or any other determining factors that may or may not have shaped his or her psyche and outlook on the world '

Everybody's happy and nobody can take offence? ;)

Look at what they achieved.



Yes they built a land that elects a president who lectures them and the rest of the world on freedom and justice

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13936994/

:rolleyes:

...anyway isn't saying "god" a bit discriminatory in a multi-cultural society like the US? It gives the impression the christian god is the only one worth believing in, when in fact we all know thats wrong.As I was listening to the news this morning and heard yet another argument over the "under god" portion of the pledge of allegiance, I had a thought that may explain that "discrimination". Those who firmly believe that the Founding Fathers made references to 'God' throughout the framework of our construction because they adamantly held that Christianity should be the basis of the country, didn't stop to consider that at the time, Christianity was the only religion here, brought by an extremely limited cultural sample. Over the next two centuries, we experienced an influx of immigrants and a widening of the cultural sampling which compose the "great melting pot" and therefore the entire picture they had is no longer the entire picture. It seems to me that the basic ideology was sound, however the ifs,ands, or buts need to be revamped accordingly...just a simple thought for your Thursday morning ponderings.


oh I think you'll find lippy Brits experts at defending themselves and we know you Yankies don't fare well against those who shoot back:cool:Now, now...remember what happened the last time you attempted to shoot back at the Yankies. Then again, maybe it's only the Brits that offer us no troubles:confused:

'cause they're scared, afraid of the truth, can't argue otherwise, are Republicans, how long a list do you want?Yep! That's why we like you so much...that indomitable Rich-logic:D

Now, now...remember what happened the last time you attempted to shoot back at the Yankies. Then again, maybe it's only the Brits that offer us no troubles:confused:


Yes, Rich, and this time they could probably defend themselves without huge help from the French. :eek:

I mean, you've only got to look at the British casualties in any war from the last decade or two in which we've been one of their allies to know that they're quite adept at taking out British forces. Just imagine what they'd be capable of if we weren't on the same side. :D

Colin, you asked a direct question to which I will give a direct answer, even though the question wasn't directed to me.

Why do I need guns? Because as long as there are people who don't want to work for a living AND who don't care who they hurt in order to STEAL for a living, I need a gun to level the playing field. Not because they want to steal for a living but because they don't care who they hurt when they steal. They often don't want to leave behind witnesses. Look up the word "deterrence" in your dictionary.

In any discussion of why one needs a gun, consider the Swiss and Israelis, who have a high percentage of guns among their populations. Check their crime rates. You have to isolate acts of terrorism for Israel, but look at their domestic crime rates. Consider how many countries decided to invade Switzerland. Given the level of hatred, look at how many COUNTRIES (not terror groups, who are stateless) have decided to invade Israel and how well it has worked.

The question of "why do you need a gun" depends on who wants your land more than you do. Or your belongings. Or your daughters.

In any discussion of why one needs a gun, consider the Swiss .... who have a high percentage of guns among their populations. Check their crime rates..... Consider how many countries decided to invade Switzerland. .

The Swiss don't have a permanent army. The male population is armed by the government - between the ages of around 20 - 30, I think - and expected to fight if needed. This means that they tend to associate gun ownership with defending their country, not crime.

Anti gun-control people might argue that Switzerland proves the lack of a link between gun ownership and violent crime in society but it's hardly evidence that gun ownership everywhere is a good idea.

To start with, Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, is pretty isolated, and has very few if any of the social problems associated with gun crime in other countries (drugs, slums, etc).

As a totally different culture, comparison between there and, say, the US doesn't prove or disprove anything.

To start with, Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, is pretty isolated, and has very few if any of the social problems associated with gun crime in other countries (drugs, slums, etc).

Which is the cart and which is the horse?

To start with, Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, is pretty isolated, and has very few if any of the social problems associated with gun crime in other countries (drugs, slums, etc). ?

Which is the cart and which is the horse?

Good question.

It may be a few years out of date, but I found this article interesting. A few of the suggestions made as to the reasons behind the more 'orderly' society were quite revealing.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Why do I need guns? Because as long as there are people who don't want to work for a living AND who don't care who they hurt in order to STEAL for a living, I need a gun to level the playing field.
So that means that if you have an intruder, you will shoot him / her irrespective of whether they have a gun? if not, can you tell me exactly when you would shoot someone? - when they move their arm quickly? - if they reach for their pocket? - or just as soon as you see them and 'bang', they're dead.

In any discussion of why one needs a gun, consider the Swiss and Israelis, who have a high percentage of guns among their populations.

The Swiss cannot be equated to the USA in gun ownership, and the Israelies have enough to worry about without resorting to robbing each other

The question of "why do you need a gun" depends on who wants your land more than you do. Or your belongings. Or your daughters.

Like who for example?

I still think gun ownership in the USA is a macho thing. . . .a previous poster said they can't wait to say "go on punk, make my day" whilst holding a gun to the intruders head.

Col

Hey Col

So that means that if you have an intruder, you will shoot him / her irrespective of whether they have a gun?

I can actually see something in this.... Only problem is that you must have the
L situation where intruders are not allowed to have guns. You do not want to have the risk of an intruder either shooting first or shooting back if your first shot is not quite good enough

where intruders are not allowed to have guns.

Yeah, we can do sign on the front door:

"Attention Intruders, please check your gun at the door before entering."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think getting shot should be an occupational hazard for those who choose to break into other people's properties. Regardless of whether they are armed or not. Point is, the owner has no idea what the intruder's intentions are.

... Point is, the owner has no idea what the intruder's intentions are.

How about this for an intention: "I have with malice intent, elected to enter your home."

How about this for an intention: "I have with malice intent, elected to enter your home."

Well yes precisely. You know for sure that the intent is not benevolent. It's just the extent of the malice that is not known.

Saying this, why should the home dwellers carry all the risk?
Why should they not be allowed to wrestle control of the situation?

Yeah, we can do sign on the front door:

"Attention Intruders, please check your gun at the door before entering."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Somehow I do not think that will work. Good idea but just not going to work.

If its dark they will not see the sign will they. :cool: :cool:


L

It's just the extent of the malice that is not known.

I vote to let that be the intruders problem...;)

Somehow I do not think that will work. Good idea but just not going to work.

If its dark they will not see the sign will they. :cool: :cool:


L

How about if we require intruders to carry a flashlight so that they can keep up with local intrusion etiquette?

Somehow I do not think that will work. Good idea but just not going to work.

If its dark they will not see the sign will they. :cool: :cool:

L

How a well-lit sign, asking that intruders knock on the door? That way you can explain the rules to them.

Added advantages include:
They will be able to see to sign the declaration of malice,
You can loan them a pen, should they have forgotten to bring one,
You will be present to witness the document, so that it would stand up in court
You can open the door, thereby avoiding property damage
and
You'll be able to see them more clearly, should you still wish to shoot them.:D

I vote to let that be the intruders problem...;)

I second the motion ...:cool:

'declaration of malice' - I like it. :):):)

'declaration of malice' - I like it. :):):)

I, the undersigned, do hereby express my intention to gain unlawful access to the address shown below:

.................................................. .............................
.................................................. .............................
.................................................. .............................
.................................................. .............................

Said access to be for the purpose of, but not limited to, destroying, damaging and/or obtaining goods and chattals not belonging to myself.

Signed: ..........................

Print Name: ..........................

I ........................... do hereby declare that the person named above has declared their malicious intent and reserve my right to hamper them in their efforts/wound them/kill them (delete as applicable).

Signed:..........................

Date:.............................

I, the undersigned, do hereby express my intention to gain unlawful access to the address shown below:

.................................................. .............................
.................................................. .............................
.................................................. .............................
.................................................. .............................

Said access to be for the purpose of, but not limited to, destroying, damaging and/or obtaining goods and chattals not belonging to myself.

Signed: ..........................

Print Name: ..........................

I ........................... do hereby declare that the person named above has declared their malicious intent and reserve my right to hamper them in their efforts/wound them/kill them (delete as applicable).

Signed:..........................

Date:.............................

:D Looks good... What's wrong with a little hampering :p

At least in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, looting and general thuggery have increased. Perhaps not exponentially, but certainly they have increased very much. Louisiana lawmakers recently passed a bill that explicitly says the homeowner does not have to determine the intentions of a trespasser in that person's house. No "malicious intent" forms needed whatsoever.

The general rule is you can shoot a person in your house if you believe the person is up to no good. Obviously, shooting someone invited into the house is not a good idea, but uninvited intruders? It's open season. Precisely because you might not have the time it takes to determine intent or whether the person has a weapon. The goal is that the homeowner SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GUESS.

The bad guy can be safe simply by being bad somewhere else. Failing that, the bad guy coming in the door could see the homeowner with a gun and run back out the door. Once the person is outside and fleeing, the homeowner loses the right to shoot first and ask questions later. I once asked a police officer about this fine point. He told me, just be sure that the guy falls into your house so it looks like you were shooting him when he entered. The way the law is written, you'll be in the clear.

Colin, I think this at least implies the answer to the "when would you shoot" question. But I'll be blunt. If I'm carrying and the perp is where I have a clear shot, I'm shooting ASAP. If I'm not carrying, I'll run to where the gun is kept and WILL be carrying in seconds. If the perp isn't carrying, I'll make it. If the perp is carrying and I don't make it, I'll have my wife forward you the news so you will realize I was right.

The general rule is you can shoot a person in your house if you believe the person is up to no good. Obviously, shooting someone invited into the house is not a good idea, but uninvited intruders? It's open season.

I can see the idea behind it - and, yes, anybody breaking in pretty much deserves what they get - but what's to stop a drunken argument getting out of hand, one person shooting another, then claiming that he/she had broken in?

Doesn't the policy rely on people's word a bit much? Not that a lot of people's word isn't good, but how do you get around people deliberately inviting in someone they've got a long-standing feud with, just to shoot them?

Matt, therein lies the problem. If the police investigate and suspect that an invitation preceded the entry, or if they find that the person was someone you knew, you could expect hours of grilling on that subject.

On the other hand, if the person is unknown to you and (as is likely in such cases) has a breaking & entering record, the odds are that the cops will pass on deep investigation. They'll probably apply the principle of misadventure and suggest to the district attorney's office that it is a justifiable homicide case. Bye-bye, intruder.

Matt, therein lies the problem. If the police investigate and suspect that an invitation preceded the entry, or if they find that the person was someone you knew, you c