Guns, Butter, and Led Zepplin

[Guest]

No. Someone might load it I could shoot my toe off.

I have other guns for more serious purposes(pray I never need them for more than hunting.) I just mentioned the 6-shooter because I thought Roland might appritiate it.

[Rhydderch Hael]

All this talk of projectile weaponry leaves me with the feeling that I'm in the wrong damned age.

I just spent this afternoon cleaning and polishing out the blades of my two swords. The brand-new and pricier model had three spots of light discolouration on the bevel and edge that had to be Flitz-ed out, a problem that does not show up in my older weapon. I think it has to do with the differing blade compositions (new sword is 1075 steel, old one is 5160) with the trace chromium in the 5160 offering a far more forgiveable resistance. Here in the desert, the stuff is rather low-maintenence. The 1075 of the new sword, however, appears to warrant good monthly attention. Which, by the way, is no more demanding than any other sword owner in favorable climate conditions has to put up with.

As to home defense, the longsword is... not the best way to go about it. But there's no getting around the destructive power (against anything within five feet of your person, that is) by either the cut or the thrust. Swords are the reason why men in the Middle Ages thought it was a good idea to wrap their bodies in fifty pounds of iron.

I received some texts on basic German longsword instruction this week, and while it cannot replace the usefulness of live instruction, at least I now know my ochs from my pflug, so to speak. ;)

Okay, so I don't have a Glock and probably couldn't turn a tin can over at twenty paces— but I've learned how to "press the hands", a cute little euphemism about how you can give an assailant the oppurtunity to pull off a highly realistic Cap'n Hook getup every Halloween fortwith (it's why we have gauntlets, baby—there were no Harleys in the Middle Ages).

[Guest]

I thought i responded to this.

[Chaerophon]

Wow. The one time that I would have thought that the knee-jerk libertarian impulses would have been temporarily quelled, they jump out in full force.

Two thoughts:

Higher corporate tax rates would translate into more centralized government money to allocate in times of stress such as these. Welfare leads to weakness? Better welfare programs would have helped the ghettoized minority poor to get a leg up. They wouldn't have been trapped in their own city. End result? Far fewer dead. Sorry, proof is in the pudding. No other industrialized nation has such an epidemic of ghettoized poor, and contrary to the belief of many, the U.S. is not alone in its diversity.

I doubt if we will be relying, depending on the likes of UNICEF and the Red Cross when we get our 'Big One' (predicted earthquake) here in Vancouver.

Two: shooting at cops?!?! Shooting at the national guard?!?! The first instinct in New Orleans was for everyone to arm themselves, and start shooting. Contrary to Doc's claims, what was the result? Anarchy. NOT discipline and control. I'll bet top dollar that a hell of a lot more innocents died as a result of the proliferation of (often looted) guns than did criminals. Gun culture led to a grisly and unruly result. Under a more controlled, less prolific regime, legal owners could still protect their property, and there wouldn't be automatic weapons in store windows waiting to be snapped up.

I'm done.

Everyone else has an opinion, so there's mine. Piss on it if you'd like.

[whyBish]

Everyone else has an opinion, so there's mine.  Piss on it if you'd like.
[right][snapback]88840[/snapback][/right]

I can't if I agree.

[Brother Laz]

I thought I'd point out that people can't shoot each other and relief workers without guns.

The right to bear arms gets innocents killed every day. The average American is 7 (or 9?) times more likely to be shot by a family member than by a criminal. The difference is that it now happens in a disaster area and everyone is watching.

Is the right to bear guns really a foundation of democracy? The US is not the only democratic country in the world, and (except Australia, probably) very few of them have such lax gun control laws as the US.

In Europe, guns cannot be sold freely and as a result, the average muggers don't actually have guns either. Perhaps the professional criminals and carjackers do, but what is a shootout going to accomplish anyway and how often do you get carjacked in the first place?

......

Of course, ghetto life doesn't help either. Cram a lot of people living below the poverty line together with a lot of unemployed and/or homeless people, make sure the education their children receive is inadequate for a better life, do not promote any human values in the media (violence sells better), then insult them by saying 'poverty is a state of mind'.

I'm sure rich white people are responsible with guns, but people with no long-term future tend not to care about the short-term future either. Result: constant shoot-outs.

......

As for withholding the remaining citizens food and water to force them out of the city, I figure this is just part of the American philosophy that the poor have brought it upon themselves and are therefore to be treated as filth.

Of course, I take it that saying 'get out' is the extent of the gov't's responsibilities and those forced out will just end up homeless in nearby cities. I guess it was their fault for not having the money to leave in the first place, then their fault again to loot food stores.

Lazy bums should have bought a $100K university degree instead of being a burden on society and insisting the richest goverment on earth provides them the means to stay alive (food and water) for free. Shoot them.

[ShadowHM]

Of course, I take it that saying 'get out' is the extent of the gov't's responsibilities and those forced out will just end up homeless in nearby cities. I guess it was their fault for not having the money to leave in the first place, then their fault again to loot food stores.


[right][snapback]88852[/snapback][/right]

On the subject of 'not having the money to leave in the first place': I was out of the media loop for the first part of the Katrina disaster (I have a radio at the cottage but seldom turn it on, and no other media acess.) When I heard that there was an evacuation order, my (naive) assumption was that the wherewithal to actually do so would be made available to all residents there. i.e. that the city would be commandeering all buses of any kind and providing transportation out of the city to all who showed up at a series of designated pick-up points. Apparently this was not the case. :blink: If you had money, you could leave. If you had a vehicle of your own and gas to put in it, you could leave. But if you had niether, you were SOL, apparently. :huh:

I really hope, before the finger-pointing exercises wind down, that someone asks some pointed questions to the Mayor of New Orleans as to why this had to be the case.

[Doc]

On the subject of 'not having the money to leave in the first place':  I was out of the media loop for the first part of the Katrina disaster (I have a radio at the cottage but seldom turn it on, and no other media acess.)    When I heard that there was an evacuation order, my (naive) assumption was that the wherewithal to actually do so would be made available to all residents there.  i.e.  that the city would be commandeering all buses of any kind and providing transportation out of the city to all who showed up at a series of designated pick-up points.    Apparently this was not the case.  :blink:    If you had money, you could leave.  If you had a vehicle of your own and gas to put in it, you could leave.  But if you had niether, you were SOL, apparently.  :huh:

I really hope, before the finger-pointing exercises wind down, that someone asks some pointed questions to the Mayor of New Orleans as to why this had to be the case.
[right][snapback]88864[/snapback][/right]

Because those people are poor. And having them die would free up a lot of money from the social services budget.

[Guest]

With out guns you cant stop a giant guy from beating the #$%& out of you.


Your whole line of thinking is bankrupt and is in essence no different that than a ludites.


Also there is no where in America with the "constant shoot outs" you mention.




Really if you broke it down clearly the problems you mention have very little to do with guns and almost everything to do with members of society being dienfranchised.

[Guest]

Blah blah.

Why isnt anyone honest.
Its because the city has a limited amount of money and if you spend it all on what turns out to be false alarms you cant spend it making people "happy".

Its all a gamble and politicians win some and lose some.

[Chesspiece_face]

Because those people are poor. And having them die would free up a lot of money from the social services budget.
[right][snapback]88866[/snapback][/right]

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/09/12/trappe...new_orleans.php

[jahcs]

Higher corporate tax rates would translate into more centralized government money to allocate in times of stress such as these.  Welfare leads to weakness?  Better welfare programs would have helped the ghettoized minority poor to get a leg up.  They wouldn't have been trapped in their own city.  End result?  Far fewer dead.  Sorry, proof is in the pudding.  No other industrialized nation has such an epidemic of ghettoized poor, and contrary to the belief of many, the U.S. is not alone in its diversity.

Two: shooting at cops?!?!  Shooting at the national guard?!?!  The first instinct in New Orleans was for everyone to arm themselves, and start shooting.  Contrary to Doc's claims, what was the result?  Anarchy.  NOT discipline and control.  I'll bet top dollar that a hell of a lot more innocents died as a result of the proliferation of (often looted) guns than did criminals.  Gun culture led to a grisly and unruly result.  Under a more controlled, less prolific regime, legal owners could still protect their property, and there wouldn't be automatic weapons in store windows waiting to be snapped up. 

Everyone else has an opinion, so there's mine.  Piss on it if you'd like.
[right][snapback]88840[/snapback][/right]

Higher corporate tax rates? I would be happier with closing the loopholes in the tax code. The U.S. tax code is a bloated giant that needs to be cleaned up.

By better welfare programs I hope you don't mean "give them more money." Paying someone more money to not be a productive member of society does not work. If someone is getting paid to not work why would they start working. Now if by "better welfare programs" you mean education, training, and similar programs that give people the tools to succeed I will agree. (People have to want to suceed too ;) )

The first instinct for many residents that stayed in NO was not to start shooting, it was to start taking stuff. Food and other neccesities, ok, I'll help you carry it. But then there was the looting and people wanting to take what wasn't theirs. The people trying to take what wasn't theirs used guns and the people defending what was theirs did too.

[jahcs]

On the subject of 'not having the money to leave in the first place':  I was out of the media loop for the first part of the Katrina disaster (I have a radio at the cottage but seldom turn it on, and no other media acess.)    When I heard that there was an evacuation order, my (naive) assumption was that the wherewithal to actually do so would be made available to all residents there.  i.e.  that the city would be commandeering all buses of any kind and providing transportation out of the city to all who showed up at a series of designated pick-up points.    Apparently this was not the case.  :blink:    If you had money, you could leave.  If you had a vehicle of your own and gas to put in it, you could leave.  But if you had niether, you were SOL, apparently.  :huh:

I really hope, before the finger-pointing exercises wind down, that someone asks some pointed questions to the Mayor of New Orleans as to why this had to be the case.
[right][snapback]88864[/snapback][/right]

The evacuation plan for NO was inadequate and appears to have been administrated by incompetents. The evacuation was not called for until too late, the shelters were not out of the danger zone, and no allowances appear to have been made for people that wanted to leave and were unable. There are always those holdouts that won't leave/try to weather the storm to consider too. The evacuation order was NOT a mandatory evacuation until after the storm had gone through the area.

[Guest]

True or not(probably true) that should become the official account.

[jahcs]

I thought I'd point out that people can't shoot each other and relief workers without guns.

No, but the determined will use other weapons at hand...

The right to bear arms gets innocents killed every day. The average American is 7 (or 9?) times more likely to be shot by a family member than by a criminal. The difference is that it now happens in a disaster area and everyone is watching.

I agree with your premise here.

Is the right to bear guns really a foundation of democracy? The US is not the only democratic country in the world, and (except Australia, probably) very few of them have such lax gun control laws as the US.

It is a foundation of our democracy. We were founded with the ideal that the people should establish the government to serve them, not be ruled by the government. The right to bear arms was a cornerstone of enabling that ideal.

In Europe, guns cannot be sold freely and as a result, the average muggers don't actually have guns either. Perhaps the professional criminals and carjackers do, but what is a shootout going to accomplish anyway and how often do you get carjacked in the first place?

Bah, it's carjackee's fault for owning a car in the first place... :P
Fixing our gun control and ownership system should be a priority but it's a political hot potato. You can be more than pro-gun or anti-gun but the U.S. media does not see it this way.

......

Of course, ghetto life doesn't help either. Cram a lot of people living below the poverty line together with a lot of unemployed and/or homeless people, make sure the education their children receive is inadequate for a better life, do not promote any human values in the media (violence sells better), then insult them by saying 'poverty is a state of mind'.

I'm sure rich white people are responsible with guns, but people with no long-term future tend not to care about the short-term future either. Result: constant shoot-outs.

Areas with higher concentrations people tend to have higher crime rates. Poorer people tend to live in high density areas...
"Poverty is a state of mind" - where did this hogwash come from? Some of our people think all welfare folks are lazy bums, only some of them are. Many are trapped by the system and we know this.

I'll let the rest of this troll crawl back under it's bridge.

......

As for withholding the remaining citizens food and water to force them out of the city, I figure this is just part of the American philosophy that the poor have brought it upon themselves and are therefore to be treated as filth.

How do you know that's how we feel? I disagree vehemently with your statement.

Of course, I take it that saying 'get out' is the extent of the gov't's responsibilities and those forced out will just end up homeless in nearby cities. I guess it was their fault for not having the money to leave in the first place, then their fault again to loot food stores.

Have you been able to catch any news from U.S. sources? Much of it centers around the incompetence of the Local NO Government, the LA State Government, FEMA, the Federal Government, and their inability to get the situation taken care of in a better fashion.

[Occhidiangela]

Typical Euro Liberal Anti Firearm reaction[right][snapback]88852[/snapback][/right]

This is a paid political announceement. ;)

Stay on your side of the pond, you appear to prefer the risk environment there.

I prefer a place where the populace is armed, and I am willing to accept the risks that come with that. An unarmed citizen is a subject. I note that your assertion about the "innocents" being harmed by firearms ignores both significant statistics, and also ignores one of the balancing factors of firearm ownership, which is the prevention of victimization. (Check any NRA website for loads of anecdotes about how presenting a firearm deterred crime. I realize the NRA typically goes over board on that, but so do the "oh dear, guns are dangerous" chicken little crowd.)

Trade in a right for less risk? Brother Laz, that goes in the category of thanks, but no thanks.

/Paid political announcement

[Doc]

This is a paid political announceement.  ;)

Stay on your side of the pond, you appear to prefer the risk environment there. 

I prefer a place where the populace is armed, and I am willing to accept the risks that come with that.  An unarmed citizen is a subject.  I note that your assertion about the "innocents" being harmed by firearms ignores both significant statistics, and also ignores one of the balancing factors of firearm ownership, which is the prevention of victimization.  (Check any NRA website for loads of anecdotes about how presenting a firearm deterred crime.  I realize the NRA typically goes over board on that, but so do the "oh dear, guns are dangerous" chicken little crowd.)

Trade in a right for less risk?  Brother Laz, that goes in the category of thanks, but no thanks.

/Paid political announcement
[right][snapback]88885[/snapback][/right]

Euroweenies make Baby Jesus cry.

You know what, every time I hear some pussified Nancy boy "subject" from another country complaining our guns, all I can hear coming out of their mouths are "Boy those grapes are sour."

On a personal level, guns make sure I have a voice. Because of my skin colour, because of my dreadlocks, because of the fact that I am obviously NOT WHITE that means that there are a lot of people who would wish that I would just go away or did not exist. There are a lot of folks that are white that wish us people with darker tones would stay our of their democracy. Having a gun makes sure that I am listened to in some form or another and nobody can just go and rob me of my rights. A gun makes sure that I am taken seriously. It is empowering. It's not about threats, or violence, or armed uprising... It's about backing up the concept of everybody being equal with force, but only if need be. A gun levels the playing field.

A gun is very, very important to true democracy. It is the booming voice of the people that can not, and will not, be ignored. And every American home should have a gun. Or two. And everybody in that home, adults, and children of a responsable age, should be well trained in the use of household firearms. In the event of crisis or emergency, like what we are seeing unfold now, educated responsable citizens well trained in the use of fireams can keep order.

And since I have most likely taken a turn for being a troll in this post, allow me to go all the way. I am going to Godwin this sumbitch. Next time another Hitler goes steamrolling over European soil I don't want to hear one single solitary peep out of the "Americans and their stupid guns" crowd. Just STFU. And don't call us. Use those prissy little limp wrists of yours and go slap your new dictator.

Coffee. It makes a body bitter.

[Occhidiangela]

Euroweenies make Baby Jesus cry.

Starting with Voltaire. ;)

A gun levels the playing field.

Only when competently handled. :shuriken:

Godwin Moment

The threat to Europe is not from a new Hitler, it is from creeping Mohamadism, overly Belgian Federalism, low sperm motility and utility, and/or a significant change in economic centers of gravity to India and China.

Hitler/Shicklegruber is the least of their worries. :P

Coffee. It makes a body bitter.
[right][snapback]88891[/snapback][/right]

It also keeps the eyes open. :rolleyes:

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

This is a paid political announceement.  ;)

Stay on your side of the pond, you appear to prefer the risk environment there. 




[right][snapback]88885[/snapback][/right]

Oh, I think there might be room on this side of the pond. The U.S. of A. does not encompass all of North America. ;)

Or do you get the only paid political announcement rights here? :P

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, I think there might be room on this side of the pond.    The U.S. of A. does not encompass all of North America.    ;)  

Or do you get the only paid political announcement rights here?   :P
[right][snapback]88894[/snapback][/right]

Rather than confront dear Brother Laz with having to choose among the immense variety of nation state/social set ups available on this side of the pond, since he seems to prefer the warm, paternalistic security blanket notion of society and abhors risk -- note that every choice involves the risk of being wrong -- I think he's better off on the other side of the pond. No fear of messing up the choice, that way.

My two wooden nickels

Occhi

EDIT / PS: On further review, if one starts at the North Pole and moves south toward the equator in the Western Hemisphere, one might discern an incremental increase in chaos and social disorder with every league travelled south. I am sure there is a joke there somewhere, but at the moment, I'm not seeing it.