American National Anti-Gun Association

Post questions or suggestions here.
Locked
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

American National Anti-Gun Association

Post by Kelly Jones »

I've decided that Americans against gun violence should rename themselves explicitly as anti-gun groups. This includes renaming the largest membership group as a National Anti-Gun Lobby.

This is quite amazing, since the National Rifle Association's "Institute for Legislative Action" already lists all these groups as Anti-Gun Lobbies! They should bite the bullet.

You can click here for the list of American organisations that support anti-gun policies, but don't want to call themselves anti-gun lobbyists.

Until there is a solid, national agreement and determination to make gun ownership highly restrictive, Americans won't be as capable of thinking and speaking truthfully.


-
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

The only group that comes close is "handgunfree.org" but their website is down.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

1) You're in Australia. Why are you stepping out of bounds? Stay the fuck out of our politics, please.

2) There's a reason they don't all band together. It's because they're morons.

3) It's funny how you assume that a thinking society should prevent the freedom of thought of its inhabitants. How backwards.
- Scott
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Why do you say "stay the fuck out"

and

"our" politics?

Do you not see your anger? That your thinking has become suddenly dark and clouded?

Do you realise you are calling me thoughtless for living in a society with careful gun ownership and usage laws?

Australian gun licenses are highly restrictive. One cannot just go into a shop and buy a gun, for instance. There is a set of rules on ownership and usage of a gun.

This is wholly reasonable and not at all moronic, because one ought to know how to use a gun. It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife, strengthwise, for instance. So one should be quite cautious with a gun.

Also, the other main reason for restrictive licenses is because emotionalism is highly valued nowadays. A wise society would be far more rational about gun use and not need to have formal and legalised rules. But that is hundreds of years down the track.





I think the reason you say you support unlicensed gun ownership, Scott, is not because you value freedom of thought, or even gun ownership, but because you are uncertain what total absence of emotion and egotism is like.

-
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

HAHAHAHA!

Kelly's title - "American National Anti-Gun Association" shortens to ANAGA - which would easily be pronounced as "a nagger" meaning "one who nags." Hilarious. Now if only Kelly had made that joke on purpose...

Kelly, regarding Scott's comment about Americans against gun ownership "they're all morons" - I don't see how you are taking it personally and supposing he is calling you thoughtless. You're Australian. If you spoke with a group of Americans who are anti-gun about any topic other than gun ownership, and then spoke with a group of Americans who support gun ownership about the same topic that was not related to guns, I'm sure you would note a significant difference in the intelligence level of the two groups - generally speaking of course.

edit to add:

Kelly, you even had to link to the NRA for your list (the NRA is the biggest pro-gun lobby). And the anti-gun organizations they list is actually anti-stupid stuff with guns, not really "anti-gun" as an Australian or Canadian would think of it.
.
Last edited by Elizabeth Isabelle on Sat May 12, 2007 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Kelly,
Why do you say "stay the fuck out"

and

"our" politics?
Because you're an Australian concerning yourself with the politics of my country. Why are you doing it? Why does everyone else in the world think they can comment on America, while not being American? Why does America occupy the minds of people on the other side of the globe?

Do I sit here and try to discuss the politics of your country? No. What business would I have in doing that? I don't even have a good frame of reference, having never been to Australia. If I were to do so, I'd look like a fool.

Criticism of America sickens me, especially when it comes from places like the UK and Australia. I could understand somewhat if it were criticism of international issues, like Iraq, but this is about something that has absolutely nothing to do with you. What's up with this need to comment?
Do you not see your anger? That your thinking has become suddenly dark and clouded?
What are you talking about?
Do you realise you are calling me thoughtless for living in a society with careful gun ownership and usage laws?
No I'm not. I'm calling you thoughtless because you discuss American politics for no reason other than to be a smartass.
Australian gun licenses are highly restrictive. One cannot just go into a shop and buy a gun, for instance. There is a set of rules on ownership and usage of a gun.
I'm aware of that.
This is wholly reasonable and not at all moronic, because one ought to know how to use a gun. It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife, strengthwise, for instance. So one should be quite cautious with a gun.
I agree.
Also, the other main reason for restrictive licenses is because emotionalism is highly valued nowadays. A wise society would be far more rational about gun use and not need to have formal and legalised rules. But that is hundreds of years down the track.
Well, I disagree. I think we're all ready to be able to live a free life.
I think the reason you say you support unlicensed gun ownership, Scott,
What the fuck? When did I say I support unlicensed gun ownership? I FULLY support EVERYONE being licensed. I do not support people banning weapons from being owned by law abiding citizens.

Please, Kelly, stop putting words in my mouth.
is not because you value freedom of thought, or even gun ownership, but because you are uncertain what total absence of emotion and egotism is like.
What's your problem?
- Scott
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

sschaula wrote:Kelly,
Why do you say "stay the fuck out"

and

"our" politics?
Because you're an Australian concerning yourself with the politics of my country. Why are you doing it? Why does everyone else in the world think they can comment on America, while not being American? Why does America occupy the minds of people on the other side of the globe?

Do I sit here and try to discuss the politics of your country? No. What business would I have in doing that? I don't even have a good frame of reference, having never been to Australia. If I were to do so, I'd look like a fool.
So do we equally have no right to say anything against the forced clitorectomies performed in the Middle East, or the infanticide in China, or the nazi extermination camps, or other forms of genocide, or the lack of birth control in underdeveloped nations, etc.?
.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:regarding Scott's comment about Americans against gun ownership "they're all morons" - I don't see how you are taking it personally and supposing he is calling you thoughtless.
It was a reasonable conclusion to interpret these two points by Scott as being connected:
2) There's a reason they don't all band together. It's because they're morons.

3) It's funny how you assume that a thinking society should prevent the freedom of thought of its inhabitants. How backwards.
Namely, that any society formed to make, and have enforced, anti-gun laws, is made of morons and not-thinkers.



You're Australian.
Yet I know that guns and egotism don't go together. At least, if one values consciousness, and perhaps you don't?


If you spoke with a group of Americans who are anti-gun about any topic other than gun ownership, and then spoke with a group of Americans who support gun ownership about the same topic that was not related to guns, I'm sure you would note a significant difference in the intelligence level of the two groups - generally speaking of course.
And the conclusion is obvious, isn't it?
Kelly, you even had to link to the NRA for your list (the NRA is the biggest pro-gun lobby).
Yes, that's the point I was making. The pro-legislation groups are so cowardly - or perhaps terrified - that they won't see themselves as one group. Yet to everyone else (ultimately) they are obviously one group.

Their courage and efficiency will increase significantly when they stick up for their higher values.


And the anti-gun organizations they list is actually anti-stupid stuff with guns, not really "anti-gun" as an Australian or Canadian would think of it.
Anti-gun means anti-stupid stuff with guns. Anti-gun is not the real message, but the only way to remove anti-stupid is to be pro-thinking.

This is the whole point. Being afraid to speak or think truthfully because of the likelihood of having someone pull out a gun when they're angry.

It is my theory, and the reason I posted this thread in the first place, that Americans are afraid of speaking and thinking truthfully.

I saw that Scott is struggling to streamline his thinking, and that he has a major attachment to gun ownership. I linked the two - and hey presto. Scott immediately withdrew out of the discussion on the nature of delusion, attachment, and enlightenment. Vested interests, no?


My point is: make guns a very rare commodity. That is basically "anti-gun" for the majority. The minority are farmers, hunters, and military --- all holding licenses issued by an intelligent and non-belligerent government.

This will help people see that they do not need to be afraid of being killed the moment they enter into a debate that challenges one's attachments.

In turn, they will not feel so afraid to continue those thoughts and debates.

They will feel more at ease, less nervous, and thinking will flow more comfortably.


-
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Elizabeth,
So do we equally have no right to say anything against the forced clitorectomies performed in the Middle East, or the infanticide in China, or the nazi extermination camps, or other forms of genocide, or the lack of birth control in underdeveloped nations, etc.?
No. We do have a right to step in when things are obviously not good. When people are being oppressed.

To compare things accurately, what Kelly is doing is what I would be doing if I were to look at certain parts of the Middle East and try to say we should abolish women covering their heads there. I have no right or place to do or say that. Anyone who does is just being a smartass.
- Scott
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Scott Schauland wrote:When did I say I support unlicensed gun ownership? I FULLY support EVERYONE being licensed. I do not support people banning weapons from being owned by law abiding citizens.

Please, Kelly, stop putting words in my mouth.
Do you realise that most of the groups you call moronic also support everyone becoming licensed?

Are you truly unaware that you have become dark and clouded by anger?

Why do you think it is so important that people own guns, when not a farmer, hunter, or a professional soldier?



-
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Kelly,
It was a reasonable conclusion to interpret these two points by Scott as being connected:

Quote:
2) There's a reason they don't all band together. It's because they're morons.

3) It's funny how you assume that a thinking society should prevent the freedom of thought of its inhabitants. How backwards.

Namely, that any society formed to make, and have enforced, anti-gun laws, is made of morons and not-thinkers.
I was joking about number 2. Kind of.

But to be clear about my position, I don't believe that any society that has anti-gun laws is made up of morons. I do believe it is, if there is violence occuring in that society. It's obvious that criminals will always have great weapons, so it's essential to arm the people so they can defend themselves.

If there's little or no violence, then there's no reason to allow weapons...besides the prospect of future violence.
Yet I know that guns and egotism don't go together. At least, if one values consciousness, and perhaps you don't?
Why is it that all of the women at this forum are so annoying?
Their courage and efficiency will increase significantly when they stick up for their higher values.
Higher values? What does a person value if they want to ban weapons? Is it consciousness?
Anti-gun means anti-stupid stuff with guns.
Wrong. In America, anti-gun means anti-gun.
This is the whole point. Being afraid to speak or think truthfully because of the likelihood of having someone pull out a gun when they're angry.
You're thinking that people in America are afraid of the NRA? That they are afraid of being shot if they form a strong centralized anti-gun group?

If so, that's very ridiculous.
It is my theory, and the reason I posted this thread in the first place, that Americans are afraid of speaking and thinking truthfully.
Uhh....come to this country and find out for yourself. I don't know of anyone who is scared of speaking their mind.
I saw that Scott is struggling to streamline his thinking, and that he has a major attachment to gun ownership. I linked the two - and hey presto. Scott immediately withdrew out of the discussion on the nature of delusion, attachment, and enlightenment. Vested interests, no?
Struggling? Kelly, you were the one struggling with understanding my point in that other topic. I withdrew because you were wasting my time. I had said all that needed to be said. Don't try to think you had a little victory there.
This will help people see that they do not need to be afraid of being killed the moment they enter into a debate that challenges one's attachments.

In turn, they will not feel so afraid to continue those thoughts and debates.

They will feel more at ease, less nervous, and thinking will flow more comfortably.
What the fuck.
- Scott
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

sschaula wrote:We do have a right to step in when things are obviously not good. When people are being oppressed.
So, I see that you are oppressed, and I am stepping in.

It's not just you, Scott. It's everyone affected by the gun-wary people's difficulty with thinking and speaking truthfully, which includes those people as well.


To compare things accurately, what Kelly is doing is what I would be doing if I were to look at certain parts of the Middle East and try to say we should abolish women covering their heads there. I have no right or place to do or say that. Anyone who does is just being a smartass.
The difficulty is that human cultures are not differentiated on racial lines when it comes to egotism. All beings have the seed of Buddhahood, should they be capable of seeing what is fundamentally true.

When one race is more able to destroy other races, and is made of frightened persons who are all carrying guns, then that race is influencing all other races in exactly the same way as its own citizens are influencing each other. They (or it, Americans as a whole) are holding a sword over one's head, saying, "Agree or I may kill you."

Not conducive to truthfulness, eh?

-
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Kelly,
Do you realise that most of the groups you call moronic also support everyone becoming licensed?
No, they don't. They support making a lot of weapons illegal, so that the citizen has no way of defending themselves against criminals.
Are you truly unaware that you have become dark and clouded by anger?
I'm aware that you're pissing me off. "Dark and clouded" is pretty funny to me, though. It shows how much you rely on feelings, and how little you rely on actual reasoning.
Why do you think it is so important that people own guns, when not a farmer, hunter, or a professional soldier?
Because people need to defend their homes from criminals. Their malls and schools from shooters. Their cities from serial killers. Their country from terrorists.
- Scott
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

It's obvious that criminals will always have great weapons, so it's essential to arm the people so they can defend themselves.
and
I don't know of anyone who is scared of speaking their mind.
You continue to arm your own criminal nature, and your higher nature is too scared to speak up.

Give yourself a break, and everyone else, for God's sake. ;-)
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Oh god, this is getting annoying.

Kelly,

You might want to take a break and chill out for a while.
So, I see that you are oppressed, and I am stepping in.
Oppressed by the freedom to own a weapon?
It's not just you, Scott. It's everyone affected by the gun-wary people's difficulty with thinking and speaking truthfully, which includes those people as well.
Huh?
The difficulty is that human cultures are not differentiated on racial lines when it comes to egotism. All beings have the seed of Buddhahood, should they be capable of seeing what is fundamentally true.

When one race is more able to destroy other races, and is made of frightened persons who are all carrying guns, then that race is influencing all other races in exactly the same way as its own citizens are influencing each other. They (or it, Americans as a whole) are holding a sword over one's head, saying, "Agree or I may kill you."

Not conducive to truthfulness, eh?
What the fuck are you talking about?
- Scott
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

You continue to arm your own criminal nature, and your higher nature is too scared to speak up.

Give yourself a break, and everyone else, for God's sake. ;-)
Kelly, really, what is your problem? What does this discussion have to do with me? Why are you obsessed with trying to make me into a delusional moron, in your own mind?
- Scott
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

sschaula wrote:Kelly: Do you realise that most of the groups you call moronic also support everyone becoming licensed?

Scott: No, they don't. They support making a lot of weapons illegal, so that the citizen has no way of defending themselves against criminals.
Well, the listing descriptions of the main groups' aims must be inaccurate then. The major one says this:
Their stated goal is to win passage of "gun laws, including: (1) licensing of handgun owners, (2) registration of handguns, (3) creating consumer product safety standards for guns, (4) closing the "gun show loophole," and (5) limiting gun purchases to no more than one a month."
One a month! How many guns does a person need?



Kelly: Are you truly unaware that you have become dark and clouded by anger?

Scott: I'm aware that you're pissing me off. "Dark and clouded" is pretty funny to me, though. It shows how much you rely on feelings, and how little you rely on actual reasoning.
You are slandering me. It is your call to become "pissed off".

"Dark and clouded" is another way of saying that the rays of enlightenment are blocked.

It is not noontide for you, in other words.


Kelly: Why do you think it is so important that people own guns, when not a farmer, hunter, or a professional soldier?

Scott: Because people need to defend their homes from criminals. Their malls and schools from shooters. Their cities from serial killers. Their country from terrorists.
All deluded people are potential criminals. All deluded people are on the knife's edge of killing others and themselves given a circumstance that "triggers" them off (to use a pun).

Therefore, removing easy access to highly efficient weapons to kill is simply sane, until such time as the majority are wise.

There is always the possibility that a fool will have a great weapon of mass destruction. But if the majority are wise, then they will work out ways to reduce this likelihood.

That won't happen if they are too afraid to think or speak about wisdom (non-attachment).

-
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

sschaula wrote:Kelly: You continue to arm your own criminal nature, and your higher nature is too scared to speak up.

Give yourself a break, and everyone else, for God's sake. ;-)

Scott: Kelly, really, what is your problem? What does this discussion have to do with me? Why are you obsessed with trying to make me into a delusional moron, in your own mind?
I'm just talking about reality exactly as I see it.


-
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

Kelly,
You seem to believe restriction of firearms as the measure of a society. Though you haven't explicitly said so, I believe that is the undertone of your posts.

Why do you believe that and what do you think is accomplished by strictly enforced anti-gun laws?
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Kelly,
Well, the listing descriptions of the main groups' aims must be inaccurate then.
That's right. I don't disagree with those official aims you listed, but I do disagree with what anti-gun groups want...which is a society where all weapons are illegal.
"Dark and clouded" is another way of saying that the rays of enlightenment are blocked.

It is not noontide for you, in other words.
That's really hilarious coming from you, Kelly. Especially when you're in this kind of state.
All deluded people are potential criminals.
That's not true. They're called "sheeple" for a reason.
...That won't happen if they are too afraid to think or speak about wisdom (non-attachment).
Come back to reality, Kelly. You're trapped in a paradigm. See the world as it is, instead of as how you percieve it.
I'm just talking about reality exactly as I see it.
No, you're caught up in being an argumentative nag.
- Scott
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

ChochemV2 wrote:You seem to believe restriction of firearms as the measure of a society. Though you haven't explicitly said so, I believe that is the undertone of your posts.
No, as I said earlier, as long as the majority of humans on earth are not wise, and highly value emotionalism, then it is sane to restrict access to firearms.

You asked what this can achieve, and my answer is:

People are more likely to speak openly, and also think freely, of Truth - meaning, to have the infinite capacity to inflict pain - if they believe that someone maddened by anger at those comments, cannot kill them easily. Simple as that.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

sschaula wrote:I do disagree with what anti-gun groups want...which is a society where all weapons are illegal.
Yes, that wouldn't be sane.

What about a society in which all weapons are not easy to access? So that one is forced to resolve problems in other ways - to do a bit of thinking first, say.


Kelly: "Dark and clouded" is another way of saying that the rays of enlightenment are blocked.

It is not noontide for you, in other words.

Scott: That's really hilarious coming from you, Kelly. Especially when you're in this kind of state.
I'm not perfect, and my heart-rate is about 55 BPM rather than 50 as it normally is.

I think you're projecting quite a bit.

Your comment "it must be that time of month" was a false assumption. I'm often healthy and having a lot of wise experiences, so those pre-menstruation symptoms that are frequently complained of by females, are rare for me. I bleed a few days, that's it.

Kelly: All deluded people are potential criminals.

Scott: That's not true. They're called "sheeple" for a reason.
No, it is true. Their attachments are rarely challenged, that's all. But challenge those loves, and the claws come out very fast.

My theory is, the more a person says "fuck", the closer they are to raping someone. An angry drunk person is easily aroused by sexual desires.


Kelly: ...That won't happen if they are too afraid to think or speak about wisdom (non-attachment).

Scott: Come back to reality, Kelly. You're trapped in a paradigm. See the world as it is, instead of as how you percieve it.
The world is created by desire.


-
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

No, as I said earlier, as long as the majority of humans on earth are not wise, and highly value emotionalism, then it is sane to restrict access to firearms.
First of all, what constitutes a "wise person" in your opinion?

Second, we may highly value emotionalism but you would have to prove that causes gun deaths among legal gun owners, that a significant portion of legal gun owners use their weapons in destructive ways while under the influence of powerful emotions.

I say legal guns owners because a ban on guns would only truly effect them. Those in our society who illegally purchase weapons would likely have no trouble buying a gun on the street barring a severe crackdown on illegal gun sales when similar instances have done nothing but create a highly profitable and nigh-invulnerable criminal enterprise. Prohibition did nothing but create vast wealth for people who smuggled alcohol and the drug war has done nothing but create drug cartels which can field armies and control governments.
People are more likely to speak openly, and also think freely, of Truth - meaning, to have the infinite capacity to inflict pain - if they believe that someone maddened by anger at those comments, cannot kill them easily. Simple as that.
Banning firearms frees people who wouldn't otherwise think deeply to seek truth?

I don't see the connection because I don't think it's possible threats of violence which keep most people silent, I think it's a lack of drive to actually seek the truth and an unwillingness to travel a path without easy explanations.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Kelly,

What you are overlooking is that it wouldn't work here. There are already enough guns floating around America to arm every man woman, and child with a small arsenal. Adding more legislation for ownership would only stop people who pay attention to laws from owning guns. People who go around shooting people for illegal reasons are not concerned with the laws anyway, so laws would do nothing to stop them.

You say it would take a couple hundred years for people to evolve enough to not need formal legislation regarding guns (I think that's an optimistic time frame for people to even evolve into having that mythical version of common sense) - I say it would take a lot longer than a couple of hundred years to fish all the guns out of the hands of people who would behave irresponsibly with them. I think it would be more efficient to teach responsibility.

What I see as the problem with having guns as personal protection devices is that they are just too big. Even the smallest ones are too heavy and bulky to want to carry around everywhere, so mostly it's just jewelers, pawn shop employees, some convenience store clerks or fast food employees and other people in high-risk areas or professions that pack. That's how people who just want to go on a rampage or get ticked at their boss or something can go to their car or go home and pick up a gun and come back. Now if guns were as small as cell phones, or they released weapons grade lasers to the public, more people would be comfortable carrying something like that around with them everywhere and be able to stop a potential shooter. Just knowing that the other person is armed too, or at least someone in the crowd is, would make a potential criminal think twice about pulling a gun.

Somebody tried to carjack me once, and due to my reaction they took off (and I recognized later that most people would not have reacted like I did unless they were armed). If they had been pretty sure that all I could possibly have was a knife, a guy or two with knives still definitely has an advantage over a female. Being physically bigger and stronger should not give someone the right to do whatever they want. What's more, bloodborne pathogens are far more prevalent in America. If blood is going to have to be spilled, it is safer to do so from a distance. Finally, although the shooting rampages get the big news, far more shootings happen as just individual events. A domestic violence killing or other individual killing could happen just as easily with a knife as a gun, so even if all guns were to magically disappear from America, it would not make a significant reduction in the number of killings. It might not even reduce the killings at all if gang members and the like realized that they had more of an advantage over the average citizen since they would not be in danger of being shot for attempted whatever. Even removing the guns, the American mindset would still be the same, it is just the tools that would change.
sschaula wrote:Why is it that all of the women at this forum are so annoying?
Scott, how are you defining "women" in this sentence? Regardless, I'm not playing along with shortening "QRS woman" to "women" anymore due to the insidiously evil effects - are you returning to that philosophy?
.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Kelly,
Yes, that wouldn't be sane.
Then we agree completely regarding this topic. That people who try to make guns illegal are morons.
What about a society in which all weapons are not easy to access? So that one is forced to resolve problems in other ways - to do a bit of thinking first, say.
When the thief/rapist/killer is breaking into your house, I don't know how much good thinking will do.

Not many people, besides nut cases, solve their problems through the use of weapons...so I don't know why you're assuming that's how things are solved in this society.

Your inference and reasoning is really weird and flawed, Kelly.
I'm not perfect, and my heart-rate is about 55 BPM rather than 50 as it normally is.

I think you're projecting quite a bit.
That's right you aren't perfect. You're far from it, and I'm not saying that to be rude but only because it's the truth. Keep that in mind when you try to look down on the average person. Thinking you're more intelligent or more enlightened only adds more delusion onto your already deluded thinking. The fact is that the average person is probably a much clearer thinker than you are.
Your comment "it must be that time of month" was a false assumption. I'm often healthy and having a lot of wise experiences, so those pre-menstruation symptoms that are frequently complained of by females, are rare for me. I bleed a few days, that's it.
Well judging you by your posts today, there's obviously something bothering you.
No, it is true. Their attachments are rarely challenged, that's all. But challenge those loves, and the claws come out very fast.
Yeah, whatever. I don't see this as true at all. You have a horrible view of people, which has no basis in how things actually are.

Like I said, you're stuck in a paradigm.
My theory is, the more a person says "fuck", the closer they are to raping someone.
So I seem to be very close to raping someone, to you? What a fucking joke!
The world is created by desire.
No, your world is created by desire.
- Scott
Locked