ditto

I'm not afraid of things. It's people that worry me. Including people who wish to disarm me, while claiming they are "civilized".

Now I've answered your question, it's your turn.

If you're going to agree with or dispute something, you'd probably better quote it. Otherwise we just see these standalone responses whose referents are unclear.

I was refering to you Maggie as you well know, unless you really are that obtuse.

With "ditto"? Which of my postings?

I'm not being obtuse, you're being obscure. When two people are reading and posting at once, the order in which posts appear can be confusing.

Don't worry about it Maggie. :) It's not worth my time bothering with you.

Very well said, Elspode. I wish all those who call themselves liberals had your abundant common sense.

I won't quote xoxoBruce's post, but it's also one that shows why I think he's smart. Kudos is in order.

Remember, everyone (and especially you, Spexx): Spexxvet is not rational on the subject of killing tools. He refuses to learn anything at all on the subject, preferring to stay swaddled in his maladaptive fantasies, never understanding whenever this is possible the evils that are firmly supported by his entire thinking on the matter. Were he ever to understand arms as they should be understood, his entire intellectual ediface on the topic would come crashing about his ears, and he lives in apparent terror of this. It's a great pity, because were his ediface to collapse and reality be allowed to shine its glorious ray in, he'd become a much better citizen of this Republic than he is now, with his pro-crime and pro-genocide views, not consciously known to him but evident in his posts.

I, of course, have neither of these maladaptive views.

This is fortunate, as it keeps me from committing crimes against humanity and being tried and hanged at The Hague. Spexxvet, unfortunately, has no such luck.

The willing eschewal of violence may be quite civilized indeed, but it cannot be relied upon, human free will being what it is. Every generation of man starts from the same baseline, with the very same percentage of those with violent predelictions. Essentially, every generation must undertake to purge the brutes from itself: there are very few assy grandfathers, but more than a few assy twentysomethings, isn't that so? They either convert to something better or they die, inbetween measures like imprisonment going without saying. Again, every generation has those who are not willing to "resolve conflict nonviolently," and there is no prospect of an end to this. The reason being that evolution takes no notice of civilization.

Gun people appreciate civilization more than nongun people -- for they can defend it regardless of the level of violence the uncivilized bring to bear on it. The likes of Spexx run out of effect if the baddies bring anything more frightful or efficient than a thrown rock.

Well, Ali, you just admitted defeat: "it's not worth my time" is left-code for "my idea can't persuade you, for you've got the better one."

And we know this even if you don't or can't. We understand BBS psychology and human shiftiness.

There's a biiiig difference between "my idea can't persuade you, for you've got the better one." and "my idea can't persuade you, for you've convinced yourself far past rational arguments can"...

Guns don't scare me. People who are obsessed with them do, the same way that corpses dont scare me but people who fuck them do. Anyone who is that downright religious about their guns just puts me on edge, makes me wary, the same way someone who raises pit bulls or carries chainsaws does. They may be perfectly sane, but if they turn out not to be, or flip out, or convince themselves that all 'communists' need to die...
Fuck.

No, that's not it UG. I'm not responsible for teaching Maggie basic comprehension of text. If she can't understand what's clearly written before her, she'll need to go get herself an education elsewhere.

You mean this?

I agree, and that is my point... you don't see people organizing around the idea of "banning" them because they are "dangerous" all on their own. No tool is.

As far as the civilized thing goes, there is not one civilized nation on this planet without gun ownership of some kind.
This Civilized nation was founded on the ideal of individuality, not the socialist cooperative.
For those who are Americans, it is the most Civilized concept.
This is why an individual's right is always more important than the comfort of the masses, all of our Amendments are there to ensure that that ideal is protected in EVERY way.
As I have stated before, it takes a special person to be free... you have to put up with your neighbor's freedom and you may not like what he says and does any more than he may like what you say and do. Freedom means tolerance, if you don't have it, you need to find a place where they don't require it.
This is not a "love it or leave it" statement. I have no issue with change in the law... but basic concepts in what a nation stands-for, no. Particularly, what I think are good, very good, ideas.
Free speech can be pesky too, let's get rid of that also...
If we outlaw guns it will have no effect on criminal gun ownership... it is just feel-good politics to divert attention from real problems that politicians could actually help with, but are unwilling to because of their controversy or cost. Some of you have just bought into it.

I keep stating this... if you don't like guns, don't buy one. Nothing keeps one from this inaction.
In fact if you don't own a gun, congratulations!!!!:girlband:

You posted "And your point is?" and "Ditto." in two consecutive posts. Prior to that were three of my posts replying to three other comments in the thread, each identified with an excerpted quote. Each post had a point you either might have missed ("And your point is?"), or agreed with ("Ditto.").

If you can't be bothered to write clearly, then at least try not to clutter up the thread with unintelligible noise, and then blame the resulting confusion on others.

Nice segue, oh great and omniscient one.

No agenda there. :rolleyes:

Having such wildly different standards isn't evidence of an agenda on *my* part.

Obviously you don't find all obsessions about guns equally objectionable. :-) Somehow I don't think my refusal to surrender my weapons to people who seem obsessed with disarming me rises to an obsession itself.

Having never been mugged or raped, I can only surmise that I've done a very good job of non-violently resolving the conflict by not putting myself in that position in the first place. Carrying a gun and shooting someone who you think is going to mug or rape you (because it's too late if they've already started the act, isn't it?) is not the only method you can use to not be mugged or raped.

Wildly different standards? Do you know *me*? Do you have a close relationship with *me* and understand my *viewpoints*?

Can you shove astericks up your *ass*?

So, according your "pro-violently" standards, everyone can be his own judge? You can decide to punish her/him with the death penalty executed by yourself choosing from your armory which you have aquired because of that reason?

Legal use of deadly force, even though it is accordance with the law on Justification, is not "executing a sentence". And yes indeed, you rely on your own judgment, and thereafter your actions are subject to the judgment of a court.

Congratulations. So, obviously if someone finds themselves being mugged or raped, they must have "placed themselevs in that position", and it must be *their* fault. Pretty classic case of "blaming the victim".
If it's "too late", might as well let them finish, eh?

The actual legal standard that you're blowing off as "think they're going to" is in that law on Justification that you keep refusing to read.

The observation about "different standards" wasn't addressed to you, it referred to Elspode's demurrer that you somehow hadn't spread misinformation. The standards in question are Elspode's.

1. Easy comment to make if you're a male... if not, I apologize
2. I'll bet many rape/mugging victims thought that... right up until the time they were raped/mugged.
3. Perhaps you live a life where you don't HAVE to travel in areas where muggings and rapes are more common. Not all of us are so lucky.

From everything I have read, guns are more often used in self-defense by simply being seen. If someone is approaching you and you see them coming, the sensible thing is to run. If they chase, then you draw the weapon and, as I understand it, more often than not, they then flee. Even if they have a gun, they usually don't want to get into a gunfight anymore than the potential victim.

Wow, that's impressive Maggie. You managed to figure out Shawnee was talking to you, even if you hadn't made it clear who you were addressing in the first place!

You're comming along nicely I see. :) Congratulations. Keep up the good work.

Actually, I really do - as I've said before, I'm anti-gun as far as the concept of a weapon to kill people with is concerned... but I still believe it's your right to have one.
People obsessed with them on both sides of the argument have an unnatural and, to me, somewhat creepy fixation that i find disconcerting... though admittedly, I'm less worried about a gun control freak shooting me than a gun ownership freak.

I knew she was addressing me because she quoted me, even though she didn't use quote markup.

If you're asking for disambiguation, my phrase "Different standards" referred to "Bush is a liar" vs. "Shawnee isn't spreading misinformation". I was happy to explain that (as I do here once again), rather than simply spouting snarkyness about the supposed clarity of a one word post.

A "gun control freak" will disarm you so *someone else* can shoot you--or otherwise assault you--with impunity. A "gun ownership freak" thinks you should be allowed to decide for yourself whether you will have the ability to defend yourself if that happens. You're a hell of a lot safer from a legal gun owner than you are from a criminal.

Of course, if you're currently in a jurisdiction where the state has already disarmed the law-abiding, it's rather academic. Where are you, again?

You really do amuse me sometimes Maggie. :) Thanks for that.

No, a classic case of "blaming the victim" is trying to put an end to welfare, after all, welfare recipients are just a lazy drain on society, right MaggieL? And when you kill somebody that you *thought* was going to *mug* you or *rape* you, but actually wasn't going to, would it then be the *victim's* (the dead person) fault?

Carrying a gun does *not* *ensure* that you won't be raped or mugged, *does* *it*? Avoiding *trouble* is a more *civilized* way of living than putting yourself in *harm's* way packing a gun, *hoping* that you won't *have* to kill somebody, or *actually* killing someone. Then again, I *suppose* there are some people who *look* for trouble.

I dont (and won't) have a gun, so I'm not worried about someone taking it away. But someone without a gun isn't going to be very likely to shoot me, either. Simple logic, maggie - someone with 30 guns is a teeny tiny bit more likely to shoot me than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them CAN'T. Talking the two extremes here, that is. Now, the mugger down the street with a Colt .45 is a LOT more dangerous than the reasonable, sane person with fifteen different kinds of assault rifles, but... thats a different matter.


In Taiwan, there's madatory military service at 20, but no private gun ownership... or at least, veryveryvery little, if any. But crime is almost non-existant here -- maybe a holdover from the fact that only 20 or so years ago, this was a military dictatorship? Beats me.

Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.

Yes, "beats you" might very well be what happens. I understand from a friend with first-hand expereince that gender-variant people are not well-tolerated in Korean culture.

You say you "don't (and won't) have a gun"...I was wondering if your government would even let you have one. If not, your desires in this issue are rather moot.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nati...2331911990.htm

Apparently according to this article, it's actually possible for a private South Korean citizen to have a gun, assuming he pays off....I mean...*convinces* the cops he can see, isn't crazy and doesn't have a criminal record.

But the example you cite of the mugger and the reasonable, sane person isn't "another issue", it's exactly the issue you should be concered with. The mugger is particularly dangerous to you as long as he is better armed than you are. The reasonable sane person might concievably come to your aid if you're attacked by the mugger.

Of course, if the government has disarmed the sane person, and not the mugger, you probably can't expect much help.

I'm always amazed by the people who seem totally bemused and comforted by the fact by the fact that "if there were no guns they couldn't be shot", when it seems quite clear to me that there has never have been "no guns" since the moment guns were invented, and that imaginary state seems quite likely to stay imaginary. Furthermore they seem to be quite unable to picture how a gun might serve them rather than threatening them. Since only the cops and the bad guys have guns on TV, that must be how the real world operates...

Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate your strategies on situations that actually might happen? Of course, if your government won't let you defend yourself, maybe your time actually is better spent rationalizing why that is somehow A Good Thing. even though as far as I can see, it isn't.

It is executing a sentence. It's your sentence when you decide to use your gun. There's no judge, no jury, just you and your gun decide whether someone is guilty and should be punished with the death penalty. That's Wild West to me, not modern civilization.
That's the catch 22, you need the gun because the other one has. At the end everybody has a gun meanwhile looking suspicious to the other in case he uses it.

Guns don't kill people, Chuck Norris kills people! :bolt:

Maggie, last I checked, Taiwan is different than Korea.

Unless the person with 30 guns shoots you, or you accidentally get caught in the crossfire, or there's and accidental discharge that kills you. Then you'd have been safer if the person had no guns.

Yeah, uh... that would all be really interesting, maggie, if I was in Korea.

Mea culpa. Googling too late at night. And too much news from that benighted peninsula of late. I don't want to make a Korea of it. :-)

So...checking on *Taiwanese* gun laws, apparently you folks are not anywhere near as well-off as the South Koreans.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...674823,00.html

And yet your per-capita homicide rate is apparently higher than the US, and homemade guns are considered a significant problem.

Not seeing anything about a "crossbow violence" problem, though... :-)

You seem to live in a world full of hypotheticals. How do you live with the constant danger that your neighbor will hit you with his car? Surely it should be confiscated.

You're in more crossfire danger from the criminal; as a local gangsta told a reporter friend of mine when asked why there was so much collateral damage in Da 'Hood, his answer was "Because none of us can shoot, and we're all high". It's really hard to stay proficient with a weapon you're not allowed to own.

No, it's not a sentence. It's legal use of deadly force...whether I do it or a cop does.

Self-defense is not a "punishment". If a person attacking me survives my defense, he'll still be criminally liable for his actions, and subject to trial and punishment by the judicial system. If my defense was a "sentence", that would be double jeopardy.

Is it really your position that I have no right to self-defense? I find that appalling. If your allegedly "modern civilization" abrogates my right to defend myself if attacked, I'll take the "Wild West", thanks.

Like your hypothetical that you need a gun to protect yourself from crime. How do live with the constant danger that your neighbor will rape you with his penis or mug you? Surely you should shoot him before he does.

I was just responding to the hypothetical that someone who owns 30 guns would be more likely to protect you. I think it would be more likely that a gun causes injury to an innocent person than "protect" a person. Have you ever "protected" someone with your gun, Maggie?

Tell me what part of the World is not civilized? Then tell me how they found out about 9-11?
What was the first civilized nation? When was that?
Does that hyperbole sentence, that sounds like a newspaper headline, prove that the "civilized world" contains no violence? That the "civilized world" never goes to war? The civilized world never approves of executions? Get real.:rolleyes:
Have you ever used your life insurance?

Removing arms by legislation is force... you will have to do it at gunpoint. You will be the gun toting fanatic saying you want to have the guns, via the cops, just not anyone else... sound familiar?
You want a police state... there are plenty you can move to.
There is NOTHING civilized about a police state.

BTW, it bothers me that you have continued to use that quote as long as you have for your sig.
It was a bad, and way out of character, moment for me.
I abhor name calling and it is extremely rare for me to do so... I think you will agree with that.
I have said nothing until now because I definitely deserved for you to use it, as it was uncalled for, regardless of how far you pushed.
However, you have had it as a sig beyond what I feel is tactful.

Why can't I spell definitely without spell check getting it... it is not a difficult word to spell?

There was nothing in my last post worth discussing? :sniff:

(blue emphasis mine)
I would never force you to give up your guns. I appeal to you to voluntarily give them up. Please do not presume to tell me what I want.

Say please and I'll gladly change it. :shock: :biglaugha :bolt:

Huh? I was under the impression you wanted to legislate more gun control restrictions. I was wrong.

Please.

I probably came across that way, and Maggie may even have riled me up enough that I posted to that effect (yeah Maggie, I abdicate all responsiility and hold you to blame:p ). But I would really like to convince handgun owners, and only handgun owners, that the world would be a better place without handguns.

Would you please explain this? I don't understand what you're getting at.

OK, I'll spell it out for you.
W-H-A-T P-A-R-T O-F T-H-E W-O-R-L-D I-S N-O-T C-I-V-I-L-I-Z-E-D-? :cool:

T-H-E P-A-R-T O-F T-H-E W-O-R-L-D T-H-A-T D-O-E-S N-O-T

1. Have a highly developed society and culture.
2. Show evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable

IMHO, people who use violence to resolve conflict do not meet the second part of this definition.

So, you're saying most of Africa is not civilized. And China, well most of Asia for that matter. Oh and Australia. Of course South America. And don't forget the USA. Man, are you gonna get hate mail. :lol:

I'd not lump everyone together. Some Earthlings aren't civilized.:worried:

civ·i·lize Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[siv-uh-lahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -lized, -liz·ing. to bring out of a savage, uneducated, or rude state; make civil; elevate in social and private life; enlighten; refine: Rome civilized the barbarians.

Here's another one:

civ·i·lized Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[siv-uh-lahyzd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance.
4. easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.



I guess some people are still barbarians, even if they do live in a civilized country.

Well, I know your belief is sincerely held, but to be convincing you'll need better reasons, because the ones you have suck pretty badly. Furthermore, "the world would be a better place without handguns" is a misplaced argument, because--beyond being untrue--it's not a possible part of any solution set. Prohibitionism doesn't work in the real world. All such laws can possibly do is disarm the law-abiding.

Intreresting example. The way you could tell who was a Roman citizen on the street was they were the only ones who were permitted to carry arms.

Yeah, and they were the ones with the army too....and the slaves.

Excellent. My reply is molon labe. Now we can move on.

They're your exemplar, not mine.

And what's your point?