Why do you think guns rights have been restricted in the recent years? (activist, Canada)

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by Tin KnockerRight, and you believe that 'criminals' have no family members?
I guess you've never shot a gang-banger, right?
Don't they consider their gang as their family?

so you disagree with what we are saying? you really think that injuring or killing a criminal is likely to bring the wrath of his or her associates down on you? what is it that you are basing this on?

Whenever people behave like a 2-year old they should not be surprised to be treated like that (at least by me).

oh, i'm dying to hear what it is that i was doing that seemed to you like the actions of a two-year old. please tell.

meanwhile, disagreeing with you, especially when you fail to support any of the claims that we call you out on does not make us immature. sounds like logic to me. in fact, we might call it common sense.

What do ya think the head of a pride of lions fights for?
He defends his territory against any *immediate* threat.
The difference between an animal and a human is that animals have no ego, therefore have nothing that resembles human pride, nor would an animal try to exterminate a whole race unlike some human individuals (Hitler) have done, or at least tried to do, throughout history.

sigh. ok, in case you haven't been watching animal planet recently; when a new male lion takes over a pride, he goes out of his way to kill all of the male cubs (zoologists feel free to clarify anything i might mess or miss). that way, he has no legitimate rivals anywhere down the line. it is similar to what would happen when the babylonians or some other nation would assault and subject another one–if they get rid of the enslaved kingdom's heirs, there will be fewer chance of a rebellion.

wasn't referring to a lion prowling his territory to keep the hyenas out.

if i kill a criminal in my own home, i am not worrying whether his relatives are going to plan my eventual demise–i am worrying whether he is going to make good on any of his threats to harm my loved ones or myself.

if you really think that it would be part of a normal thought process to then plan the assassination of any of the friends and family of the dead criminal, then you have some serious issues that need to be taken up with someone licensed to handle that kind of thing, and banning all of the guns in all of the world is not going to save you from it. i'd have to ask my wife what kind of an issue that sounds like it would be, but i'm guessing paranoia and a strong dose of fantasy.

we already agreed that retribution happens, but you are trying to make it seem like it is an overwhelming reality. experience says otherwise.

Right, and whenever you lose a relative to a crime you would not take that as an offence?
Or would you consider the homicide as a simple accident or an act of God?
Besidez, how many gun owners wouldn't hesitate to take the law in their own hands by drawing their gun ( read: immediately shoot whatever it is they perceive as a threat)?

yes tricky, how many gun owners wouldn't hesitate to take the law into their own hands? i'd like an answer to that one; i'll put it on the list of all of the others that you are still ignoring.

Isn't this why you've bought the damn thing?

time and again we have answered the same things. why are you asking if you are consistently failing to read the responses?

let me break it down:

self defense and defense of others requires multiple tactical advantages.

the most important of those is your brain.

there are others: ability and courage sufficient to use your mouth; to yell, to scream, to command, to intimidate.

mechanical securities work wonders: heavy doors, locks, alarm systems, lights, quality windows, etc.

there is more: dogs, wise placement of shrubbery and fences, the condition and repair of your home; all of these will affect the outcome of an attempted breakin.

your daily routine: if you follow the same routine every day, you are more likely to get hit, and this goes for burglars, rapists, robbers, muggers, murderers, terrorists, and even assassins.

all of those things will help to keep you safer.

but tricky, nothing is 100%. that is why they added side airbags to cars; sure, you might think your car is safe enough with all of its gizmos, but wait till you get sideswiped by an suv. every little bit helps.

fact is, guns, knives, or any other weapon in which you have some skill can level the playing field when all of your other defenses don't work. even then, it isn't a sure thing though.

most of us don't buy guns because we're itching for a legal excuse to kill someone. i have already told you that, and reality plainly shows that. think about how many guns are in the hands of law abiding american citizens that have never had a problem with what it is that you are claiming is commonplace.

you can ignore that fact all you want, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. your behavior reminds me of my two-year old daughter (yeah, it comes full circle) who thinks that if she closes her eyes, she becomes invisible to mommy and daddy. i mean, after all, common sense tells her that if she can't see us, we can't see her. we like to humor her, but criminals aren't going to do any such thing for you, however. if you give them any inch of weakness, they'll take a mile.

guns aren't 100% security. but neither are fences, alarms, lights, and phones with 911 on speed dial. a gun is one among many lines of defense.

if you choose not to utilize that line of defense, have at it. that doesn't make you stupid or naive (well, maybe that depends on where you live; if i were an iraqi male for example, it would be pretty irresponsible of my to not have a rifle). but choosing to utilize the defensve potential that a firearm offers does not make me in any way more ignorant or violent than you.

so again, gun owners are for the most part responsible, intelligent individuals that have no desire to kill anyone. most of us just want to be left alone, and we are willing to take the protection of ourselves and our families into our own hands, using the legal tools and methods available.

aaron out.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by stycotl

so you disagree with what we are saying? you really think that injuring or killing a criminal is likely to bring the wrath of his or her associates down on you? what is it that you are basing this on?

On how we started WWI (and thus also WWII).

you can ignore that fact all you want, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. your behavior reminds me of my two-year old daughter (yeah, it comes full circle) who thinks that if she closes her eyes, she becomes invisible to mommy and daddy. i mean, after all, common sense tells her that if she can't see us, we can't see her. we like to humor her, but criminals aren't going to do any such thing for you, however. if you give them any inch of weakness, they'll take a mile.

Weakness is believing that you are in control of the situation when control is only an illusion.
Packing heat doesn't make you the adult, although this line of thought fits the ‘logic’ of a 2-year old perfectly.
You believe that killing your opponent is the end of the conflict while in fact it is only the beginning.
Furthermore, what every 2-year old believes is that might makes right.
Unfortunately it doesn't.
A 2-year old doesn't think logical because he only acknowledges his emotion, which is in the now. Only adults are able to guess what the possible result of their action might be, while 2-year olds only live in the moment.
Besidez, to a 2-year old logic and / or the future is an abstract concept and most adults, especially during a conflict when they are overtaken by an emotion, behave exactly like a 2-year old.

Why do you think professional law enforcement forces are taught to act by rote during a conflict?
So they won't behave like any ‘normal’ citizen ( read: either act all emotional or behave like the stereotypical brainless caveman).
Unfortunately nowadays self-discipline isn't taught as often as it should be in martial arts classes, self-defence classes and gun clubs etc.
Nowadays they only focus on how to take down your opponent, because this is what their students are paying them for and these types of people will only consider self-control 'a weakness'.
They’ll probably reason that if they wanted to learn about self-control they’d follow a philosophy class, or maybe they’re afraid that learning about self-discipline will turn them into weak pacifists?

oh, i'm dying to hear what it is that i was doing that seemed to you like the actions of a two-year old. please tell

Like I’ve posted earlier; every adult who is overwhelmed by his emotions, be they fear, rage or anything else in-between.
I guess that now I have to add every American who doesn’t want to be seen as weak?

I consider America weak because they initially wanted an international war tribunal but after having helped setting up such a tribunal the American government abandoned the whole concept because they realised that they themselves could be accused of war crimes.
This is the typical behaviour of a 2-year old; create rules that only apply to others and not yourself.
Heck, you Americans even threatened to invade The Netherlands in the hope of dissuading us for ever accusing an American military of having committed war crimes.

that way, he has no legitimate rivals anywhere down the line.

This way the lion population is kept in check.
Nature works in mysterious ways.
The simple truth of the matter is that there are so many wars nowadays because there are too many people.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

You believe that killing your opponent is the end of the conflict while in fact it is only the beginning.

I don't believe it will end the conflict, from PERSONAL experience, I KNOW it ended the conflict.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by stycotl On how we started WWI (and thus also WWII).

Whats this got to do with the subject at hand?
For what its worth WE didn't start either of those wars.

Weakness is believing that you are in control of the situation when control is only an illusion.
Packing heat doesn't make you the adult, although this line of thought fits the ‘logic’ of a 2-year old perfectly.
You believe that killing your opponent is the end of the conflict while in fact it is only the beginning.
Furthermore, what every 2-year old believes is that might makes right.
Unfortunately it doesn't.
A 2-year old doesn't think logical because he only acknowledges his emotion, which is in the now. Only adults are able to guess what the possible result of their action might be, while 2-year olds only live in the moment.
Besidez, to a 2-year old logic and / or the future is an abstract concept and most adults, especially during a conflict when they are overtaken by an emotion, behave exactly like a 2-year old.

Blah blah blah, utter nonsense. Truth is a two year old looks to others for all their needs. Adults take care of themselves. It would apear to a logical person (I'm sorry you dont qualify) That if anyone was acting like a scared child it would be you & your countrymen, who, out of unfounded fear, allow, no ask, their govt to ban all the nasties so they can feel safe.
Being 2 year olds they dont realize theres a difference between feeling safe & being safe.

Why do you think professional law enforcement forces are taught to act by rote during a conflict?
So they won't behave like any ‘normal’ citizen ( read: either act all emotional or behave like the stereotypical brainless caveman).
Unfortunately nowadays self-discipline isn't taught as often as it should be in martial arts classes, self-defence classes and gun clubs etc.
Nowadays they only focus on how to take down your opponent, because this is what their students are paying them for and these types of people will only consider self-control 'a weakness'.
They’ll probably reason that if they wanted to learn about self-control they’d follow a philosophy class, or maybe they’re afraid that learning about self-discipline will turn them into weak pacifists?

More nonsense about a subject you have no knowledge of.
Every gun training course or program I'v ever been involved with focused on self control, every martial arts program I'v ever been involved with stresses self control. Self control is very important in many ways.
It would seem to a logical person (sorry you dont qualify) that people who cant be trusted with freedom have exibited an inability to excersize self control. Why else would your Govt ban hunks of metal unless you cant be trusted to control yourself? Theres some 80 million gun owners in the US, the overwhelming majority express self control in the excersizing of their right to own firearms. Thats a fact, not uninformed ignorant opinion.

Like I’ve posted earlier; every adult who is overwhelmed by his emotions, be they fear, rage or anything else in-between.
I guess that now I have to add every American who doesn’t want to be seen as weak?

Huh? Perception mean nothing to me. Reality does. The reality is that tho I may be weak I'm not defenseless & while you may be Mr Universe & a blackbelt in 10 different martial arts, you are easilly rendered helpless, & aparently like it.

I consider America weak because they initially wanted an international war tribunal but after having helped setting up such a tribunal the American government abandoned the whole concept because they realised that they themselves could be accused of war crimes.
This is the typical behaviour of a 2-year old; create rules that only apply to others and not yourself.
Heck, you Americans even threatened to invade The Netherlands in the hope of dissuading us for ever accusing an American military of having committed war crimes.

I dissagree, its more typical 2 year old behaviour to pick & choose tid bits of your liking while ignoreing big things that dont fit your agenda.

Where you get the notion that we threatened to invade your little worthless country to prevent bad publicity is beyond me. How would invading you cover up supposed war crimes?

This way the lion population is kept in check.
Nature works in mysterious ways.
The simple truth of the matter is that there are so many wars nowadays because there are too many people.

So its not because America is run by 2 year olds? Its because theres too many people? While I will agree that population is out of control thats got nothing to do with war in the modern era. Which is no more & actually less common than in most of our history.

The reason theres as much war as there is is because some people & by extension their countries, dont take care of themselves. Some allow tyrants to come into power & rule them, others sit back as if nothings wrong until its too late & another countries tyrant walks right over them.

Heres the truth TD, pacifism & a lack of action are to blame for war & violent crime alike. There willalways be both but its attitudes like you express that allow them to thrive rather than wither on the vine.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

Whats this got to do with the subject at hand?
For what its worth WE didn't start either of those wars.

We, humans, did.
Both factions dragged their allies into a world war over a 'small' dispute*.

Truth is a two year old looks to others for all their needs

Truth is simple people (read: fascists) like simple solutions to very complex problems.
This explains the use of propaganda.
Another thing 2-year olds generally do is refuse to accept the personal responsibility for their actions; they rather blame others for their 'personal' mistakes because this is easier than to reflect on your past and / or accept that you could be entirely wrong.

Huh? Perception mean nothing to me. Reality does.

To dumb people perception = reality which, again, explains the use of propaganda; if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck and swims like a duck it then must be a duck.
The fact is that reality is much more complex than that: a duck is a bird, but not every bird is a duck.

Where you get the notion that we threatened to invade your little worthless country to prevent bad publicity is beyond me.

I guess you've never read a newspaper?

How would invading you cover up supposed war crimes?

Don't look at me for any answers, cauz it sure wasn't my dumb idea.

* The act that is considered to have triggered the succession of events that led to war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb citizen of Austria-Hungary and member of the Young Bosnia. The retaliation by Austria-Hungary against the Kingdom of Serbia activated a series of alliances that set off a chain reaction of war declarations. Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare.
Source: World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[stycotl]

Don't look at me for any answers, cauz it sure wasn't my dumb idea.

are you ever going to give a straight answer?

what does ferdinand's assassination have to do with the supposed american threats against the netherlands? the question he asked, and the answer you gave have nothing to with each other as far as i can see. maybe you ought to highlight the relevant parts, since the part that you quoted has more to do with austrians than americans.

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by stycotl On how we started WWI (and thus also WWII).

Weakness is believing that you are in control of the situation when control is only an illusion.

but again, since none of us have ever claimed that a firearm makes us 100% in control and invincible, then your tangential straw man arguments don't mean anything. as i have mentioned more times than i can count now, a firearm is one among a myriad of defenses and protocols utilized to maintain about as much control as is humanly possible. other than that, you trust to God, fate, murphey's law, or whatever else you want.

Packing heat doesn't make you the adult, although this line of thought fits the ‘logic’ of a 2-year old perfectly.
You believe that killing your opponent is the end of the conflict while in fact it is only the beginning.

you feel free to show me some statistics that back up what you are claiming. if you shoot an intruder, that is the end of the violent conflict–unless you decide to dance on his corpse, shoot him in the foot and then torture him for a while, or something else. but that makes you as much of a moron as he.

your claims of familial retribution have so far been not only unsubstantiated, but haven't even been attempted to be substantiated. are we just supposed to take your word for it that apparently the reality that everyone else sees is different, and tricky is the only one that knows the truth?

also, who among us claimed that 'packing heat' makes as an adult? no one. again, nice attempt at diverting what we are saying.

Furthermore, what every 2-year old believes is that might makes right.
Unfortunately it doesn't.

might does not make wrong though, either. if i am in the right, and someone attacks me, and i use justifiable deadly force, i'm a free man. i did nothing wrong. if i used unjustified deadly force, then obviously i am wrong. but you are trying to claim that any use of deadly force–indeed, earlier you were claiming any use of violence (self defense)–would be wrong.

might doesn't make right. but neither does submission.

A 2-year old doesn't think logical because he only acknowledges his emotion, which is in the now. Only adults are able to guess what the possible result of their action might be, while 2-year olds only live in the moment.
Besidez, to a 2-year old logic and / or the future is an abstract concept and most adults, especially during a conflict when they are overtaken by an emotion, behave exactly like a 2-year old.

i'll allow your hyperbole; *emotionally* overtaken people = 2-year olds. but you are trying to make it fit where it doesn't. obviously if the person is emotionally overtaken they are not in full command of logic. but don't insult my intelligence by trying to sneak that into a phrase that includes 'during a conflict' in order to extrapolate that whenever people are faced with stress, they become unhitched, violent psychopaths. emotionally overtaken is a rare problem for the majority of us.

most of us have good and bad days, but even on the bad days, the average person does rather well with his or her stress, compared to what you are trying to pass as the norm.

you and the rest of the gun-control advocates keep pointing to this nonexistent creature: an america whose entire population of gun owners are paranoid, emotional, violent wretches.

that seems to say a lot more to me about how you view yourself than how you view me, especially when you have no clue what i am like in person.

Why do you think professional law enforcement forces are taught to act by rote during a conflict?

again with the partial truth. there is a lot more to it than that, my friend. but i suppose that you would have need of some combat training or something in order to understand the necessity.

So they won't behave like any ‘normal’ citizen ( read: either act all emotional or behave like the stereotypical brainless caveman).

and again, trying to pass off the hollywood drama as everyday reality.

Unfortunately nowadays self-discipline isn't taught as often as it should be in martial arts classes, self-defence classes and gun clubs etc.
Nowadays they only focus on how to take down your opponent, because this is what their students are paying them for and these types of people will only consider self-control 'a weakness'.
They’ll probably reason that if they wanted to learn about self-control they’d follow a philosophy class, or maybe they’re afraid that learning about self-discipline will turn them into weak pacifists?

sounds like you just have some crappy martial arts teachers in holland. my kung fu teacher rather seemed to enjoy the whole self control soliloquies and sermons. your unsubstantiated generalizations do not an argument make.

Like I’ve posted earlier; every adult who is overwhelmed by his emotions, be they fear, rage or anything else in-between.
I guess that now I have to add every American who doesn’t want to be seen as weak?

all right. let's go back in time. you claimed that i was acting like a two-year old. i asked what made you think that. you now answer that it is because i am overwhelmed by my emotions?

please refer to the post (or the news article, podcast, or whatever else you need) where i was overwhelmed by my emotions. i bet you are not even going to answer this one, and even if you do, you certainly aren't going to be able to produce the exchange that you are claiming took place.

go ahead. i'll wait for you.

I consider America weak because they initially wanted an international war tribunal but after having helped setting up such a tribunal the American government abandoned the whole concept because they realised that they themselves could be accused of war crimes.
This is the typical behaviour of a 2-year old; create rules that only apply to others and not yourself.

i am no history major, but i seem to recall the usa backing out of the league of nations (assumption here is that this is what you are talking about) because of the strong assessment that such involvement would lead to the dissolution of our national sovereignty.

feel free to school me in history now if you have anything credible that says we were scared that we'd be accused of war crimes–that invite is open to anyone that has actual information, not just personal feeling and the omniscience that comes of 'common sense'.

Heck, you Americans even threatened to invade The Netherlands in the hope of dissuading us for ever accusing an American military of having committed war crimes.

already touched on this, but again, feel free to give us a history lesson. i'm sure we all like to learn more about history. just be sure to use more credible sources than the national or dutch enquirers.

This way the lion population is kept in check.
Nature works in mysterious ways.
The simple truth of the matter is that there are so many wars nowadays because there are too many people.

all right, now let us stop for a second and ask ourselves this:

what on earth does this have to do with your claims of how irresponsible and emotionally driven i am? do you remember when i made that guess as to the motive behind some of your posts? i said that i would bet you couldn't think of a direct response to what had been challenged, but had something tangential that you wanted to say anyway, so you went for it.

now we are discussing gavrilo princip, duke ferdinand, woodrow wilson, henry cabot lodge, and william borah.

how did the outcome of wwI, the league of nations, and the refusal of cooperation of the political enemies of the day have any effect on how competent i am to own and operate a firearm?

aaron out.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by stycotl

as i have mentioned more times than i can count now, a firearm is one among a myriad of defenses and protocols utilized to maintain about as much control as is humanly possible. other than that, you trust to God, fate, murphey's law, or whatever else you want.

A tool (read: a gun) is only as good as its user and the problem with guns is that every idiot can use it.
But the same idiot will be defeated by everyone who has a superior strategy (and it is not even necessary to be armed with a gun).

if you shoot an intruder, that is the end of the violent conflict–unless you decide to dance on his corpse, shoot him in the foot and then torture him for a while, or something else. but that makes you as much of a moron as he.

Starting wars (read: conflicts) is easy, ending them is the problem.

but i suppose that you would have need of some combat training or something in order to understand the necessity.

I guess you've never been drafted in the army like I've been?

my kung fu teacher rather seemed to enjoy the whole self control soliloquies and sermons.

LoL, next you'll be claiming that your kung fu is superior to my kung fu?

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by stycotlA tool (read: a gun) is only as good as its user and the problem with guns is that every idiot can use it.

What other tools do you want to keep from those you lable idiots?
How is it you are qualified to determine idiocy & why should your opinion be suitable cause to deny people their civil rights?

But the same idiot will be defeated by everyone who has a superior strategy (and it is not even necessary to be armed with a gun).

So why sweat gun ownership? I mean seeing as you are so intelligent & can formulate stratagy to thwart any concievable attack.

Starting wars (read: conflicts) is easy, ending them is the problem.

Nice diversionary tactic. Do you have statistics showing how often a person who defends themselves with a firearm faces a counter attack?
I doubt it, since its simply not what happens. Its concievable yes, but the truth is that 90% of the time its over when the criminal knows you have a gun. Its definately over if you kill them & usually if they get hit.
Despite your emotional drivel theres very very few times a civilian becomes involved in a "shoot out". Thats TV & thats where you get your gun views. A more intelligent person would learn from those who actually own & use guns, not by propaganda intended to put them in a bad light.
Course I'm sure your Kind doesn't want you to have rational truth based opinions on firearms.
Then you might want one & he cant be having that can he?

I guess you've never been drafted in the army like I've been?

Irrelevant as far as gun control. I'd also add that your military experience is questionable given the ignorance of some of your responses. But then again your military doctrine, given the sad performance of it in major conflicts, may very well be lacking in reality based training.

LoL, next you'll be claiming that your kung fu is superior to my kung fu?

I'd imagine they are equal. But thats got nothing to do with gun control.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

So why sweat gun ownership?

Look at your foreign policy and the eagerness America enters foreign conflicts it knows nothing of?
Like I've posted before; America rushes in where angels fear to thread.
Probably because America believes that they're God, or that God (read: victory) can only be on their side.

I'd imagine they are equal. But thats got nothing to do with gun control.

LoL, in essence you gun owners already claim that, regardless of the strategy used, having a gun makes you superior to unarmed opponents.