[meteorite-list] Firearms related posts on a meteorite list

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 00:08:23 -0800
Message-ID: <93aaac891002040008sca5914ep7fb51e37feab468c_at_mail.gmail.com>

Erik, All,

> Jason if you want to twist and distort things than buy silly putty.

If I said anything untrue, by all means call me out on it. But using
blanket statements like "you twist things" is a substanceless and
ultimately meaningless thing to do; I can call you an idiot, but if I
say only that, well, someone who values my opinion might think you an
idiot, but in the end, I haven't really said anything relevant or
meaningful.

I merely pointed out that many of the arguments that Robert used were
flawed. If disagreeing with someone, pointing out the flaws in their
arguments, and then making a few of my own is "twisting and
distorting" things, then...well, you're going to have a hell of a time
getting along with people with whom you disagree, because even if they
like discussing such things, you'll just piss them off with your trite
comments.

>Works great for holding meteorites for photographs or display.? I recommend clay more but then you wouldn't be able to twist >and distort it as easily.? Your choice will have to depend on how much of a challenge you want. Just make sure it doesn't slip >into the cracks in the meteorite as it will be hard to clean out!

Again, you're not even addressing what I said, but merely using
blanket statements aimed at insulting me.
This isn't a good way to go about a counter-argument, because you're
merely attacking my credibility, presumably because you have no good
rebuttal. In any sort of a formal debate, you'd lose a lot of points
for this.

> Gun crimes will decrease if fire arms are made illegal but also if the psycho gunman is out gunned that he won't initiate a massacre.

Hardly. If you look at all of the more infamous "rampages" in the
past, practically none were stopped by civilian gunmen. It was always
police action that took care of the issue in the end - or the shooter,
who turned the gun on his or herself.

>Iv'e never heard of a massacre at a gun show, or in a police head quarters where there were groups of armed persons...? Why is that Jason?

Well, there are a few problems with this train of thought -
1) most massacres occur in places and claim the lives of people who
were close to the killer - namely because they felt wronged by certain
people close to them, etc.
2) thus there are a high number of school shootings, university
shootings, office shootings, etc.
3) unless someone had a problem with gun shows, a police station, or a
number of people at either venue, and was willing to lay their life on
the line to kill the folks there, the person's not going to do it
4) along those lines I think it would be unlikely for someone to stage
a shooting at a gun show because, while it's a political issue, gun
control is precisely that - it ties less into morals and more into
politics - unlike abortion, gay marriage, etc.
5) similarly, while many people have a problem with the police, they
typically try to avoid them because it's a well known fact that
they're good with firearms. Which means that massacres don't happen
there because police stop them, but because everyone knows it would be
a rather quick ending.
6) Even if someone has a gun visible on their person, if I had one,
and, say, wanted their money, or to kill them, they wouldn't have a
chance in hell of surviving, because they wouldn't see me coming.
It's one thing to walk up to a police station and start shooting.
It's another to walk up behind someone with a gun in your pocket and
put it to the back of their head.

But that's the point, isn't it. If one of those people decided to
target *you,* even if you had a gun, it wouldn't make much of a
difference, unless you saw them coming, realized their intent, and
were able to literally outdraw them. So unless they're a complete
idiot, you're as good as dead.

> Your debate can be reversed as well.? If we take away weapons, gun crimes will decrease.

True.

>Also, If we urge and train >citizens to carry fire arms, gun crimes will decrease.

False. Higher availability means greater access to guns (more crimes
as well) and greater number of accidents regardless of training.

If there were fewer cars on the road, adding more cars and training
drivers more might decrease the percentage of accidents relative to
the number of drivers, but the overall number of accidents would go up
overall. As can be seen with the increase in automobile crashes with
greater numbers of cars and drivers, in the face of the advent of
standardized (and increasingly stringent) licensing policies in the
US.

And since we base gun-crimes statistics on population versus crimes,
as opposed to the number of guns in the area versus crimes, that means
that crime rates would increase.

>We can find exceptions to either case.? If we take away guns, then >only people who buy illegal guns will have guns and >people will be defenseless.

Most people are "defenseless" right now anyways. And guess what --
those people are less likely to be shat than you, a gun owner, are:

http://www.guninformation.org/

"Self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those
who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide.
Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed
that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and
homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely
that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all
cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with
the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will
commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide
attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as
sleeping pills."

And the fact remains that your chances of dying in an armed robbery
are higher if you own a gun. Your logic is simply off on this one.

> If we urge citizens to carry fire arms, >accidents involving guns will increase.
> I think it's best to keep it the way it is: if you want to own one, do, if you don't, don't.
> Govern your safety or depend on someone else too.? The freedom of choice.

By all means; I'm not trying to take your right away. It just pisses
me off when people on the list go and make childish statements like
the photos that have been posted - not to mention the fact that they
keep posting their points of view and then saying "but this shouldn't
be on the list, so don't reply on here."
I agree; this shouldn't be on the list. I stopped replying to this a
while ago, but recent posts have just annoyed me to the point of
actually speaking out again. If you want to stop the posts, stop
posting. Jesus.

> Gun owner are violent and those who don't own guns are neurotic.? Right? Wrong...

No one said that. To quote someone who messaged me privately,
-----

"You make some good points. What people don't understand is that the
2nd Amendment was not written with the intention of granting us the
right to run around, acting like complete idiots with a total lack of
maturity and responsibility. What amazes me is that, at least here X,
anyone can go to a gun store and purchase a firearm WITHOUT being
certified in gun safety and handling. If I would see an "Average Joe"
(..and I never have) walking down the street here in X, dressed in
novelty camo pants with a gun on his belt... that would tend to make
me a little nervous. Why? Because I wouldn't know what kind of formal
training he has, what his intentions are, or whether or not he is
mentally fit to do so. All of these people, particularly in "the
country", who strut around with a gun on their waist just "because I
can" really do tend to piss me off. I'd like to see them try that in
the inner city - they wouldn't last 10 minutes before getting shot
from behind and robbed of their gun and valuables. There was actually
a "gun rights" demonstration here not too long ago - all of these
"cool" hicks and rednecks (stereotype? maybe, maybe not) gathered,
some dressed in fake camo or dark "SWAT" style pants, wishing they
were an actual figure of authority, someone important - someone who I
actually have deep respect for; Police officers. Soldiers. Anyone
whose profession and dedication is to protect and serve with their
extensive training and valor. I am comfortable around them. If some of
these people could witness (first hand), at least once, the
destruction that even a single gunshot can have on the human body...
perhaps they would have more respect for the power to which they
behold."
-----

Pretty much sums up my point of view. Guns have a purpose. *You*
don't need them for that purpose, and they're for all intensive
purposes actually making the odds higher that you'll die from a gun,
whether it's yours or someone else's. That's where everything you say
falls apart; you keep insisting they're good tools for self defense
when studies show that you're actually at a greater risk for having
one. Go figure.

>The topic is elegant, simple and complex at the same time. Much like the structure of each chondrule. No view is right or >wrong, only the delivery of the view.

Just...wow. All I've seen so far is a bunch of folks who are in
denial about the fact that the toys they like to play with are used
for murder, and that having them around makes its happening all the
more likely.
Hardly elegant or simple.

Jason

> [Erik]
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:13:44 -0800
>> From: meteoritekid at gmail.com
>> To: ironfromthesky.com at gmail.com; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Firearms related posts on a meteorite list
>>
>> Robert, All,
>>
>>
>>> I spent three years training at the finest firearms institution on the
>>> planet learning about every aspect of the industry, and even designing
>>> and manufacturing my own firearms models, I am an expert in the field,
>>> and I assure you they are not "killing tools" and "assault rifles"
>>> when they leave the factory.
>>
>>
>> Well, they're not toys and they're not meant to defend against
>> anything - at least, anything other than someone else with a gun. And
>> they're not used for anything else, really...though I suppose you
>> could use one as a hammer if the situation called for it.
>> So, killing tools. Yeah. You don't eat off them, you don't really do
>> anything constructive with them....they kill.
>> That's about it.
>>
>> Hell, by your logic, a hammer isn't a building tool. It's....well, if
>> I look at what you write below, it's just a piece of metal and
>> wood/plastic. And a car isn't a transportation vehicle -
>> it's....metal, plastic, glass, and rubber.
>>
>> Kind of a crappy semantics argument.
>>
>>
>>> They are pieces of metal and plastic,
>>
>>
>> Piece of metal and plastic that, with the push of a button, can end
>> someone's life. Granted, as you say, a machete would also suffice,
>> but I don't think we had too many machete deaths here in the US last
>> year, though there are a great many machetes. You're simply ignoring
>> the fact that guns make it easier to kill someone, and that's a fact
>> that's clearly reflected in crime statistics.
>>
>>
>>> People do the killing, guns are inanimate objects.
>>
>>
>> Right, but standing in front of someone, squeezing your finger, and
>> shouting "bang!" is hardly going to get the job done. Of course,
>> knives/machetes would also suffice, but, I'll say it again: it's
>> easier to pull a trigger at someone from ten feet away than it is to
>> slide a knife between their ribs while they try to fight you off.
>> Of course, if you're just using the "inanimate object" line, we can
>> throw all sorts of things into the mix - nuclear bombs, grenades,
>> ballistic missiles, etc. All inanimate. You seem to be saying that
>> the fact that they're inanimate means that people should be allowed to
>> have them because they cause no innate harm. Following that logic,
>> you should have no problem with everyone having their own backyard
>> nuke. But for some reason that seems ridiculous...I don't understand
>> it. Somehow a great many people have decided that owning devices
>> whose sole purpose is to kill is actually an innocent endeavor -- to a
>> point. When the objects' ability to kill more than ~10-20 people with
>> the push of a button, we stop and say that it's too dangerous.
>> Apparently guns aren't *quite* dangerous enough.
>> It doesn't make any sense.
>> And while the suggestion that everyone have their own nuke may seem
>> preposterous on the surface, it has some merit - they, too, are
>> inanimate objects whose sole purpose is to kill. For some reason we
>> as a population have decided that there's some arbitrary limit to the
>> amount of killing power we want to leave in the hands of the average
>> citizen; assault rifles, yes, and maybe even the odd grenade, but
>> beyond that...it's prohibited.
>>>From an absolute standpoint, this makes no sense. If you're not going
>> to need to shoot someone or something, you shouldn't have a gun. We
>> give them to soldiers for a reason. And there's a reason we don't
>> give the average soldier a nuke.
>> But soldiers are trained, generally don't carry their guns in public
>> (at least in the US), and are, for the most part, psychologically
>> screened.
>> Though the odd nut does get through.
>> Of course, what you're really saying is that guns are merely innocent
>> bystanders to crimes in which they're used.
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html
>>
>> So this is where I'll post a link - and I know it happens more often
>> in schools than in army bases, but, it still illustrates a point.
>> This one man, with the aid of a gun, was able to kill 12 people and
>> injure 31 others. While he may have been able to do as much with a
>> machete or a knife...I doubt it. At the very least, you can run away
>> from a man with a knife. It's hard to outrun a bullet.
>>
>>
>>> So Mr. G, I have
>>> been involved with firearms my entire life, ask my friends if they
>>> think I am a morbid person.
>>
>>
>> Anything but - but I'd have to say that you value the thrill of owning
>> a weapon more than you value the increased risk of your being murdered
>> in this country because of them. And that's fine, but you're going to
>> have to understand that some people here disagree with you.
>>
>>
>>> You say we should not offend our European
>>> friends with our rights and traditions?
>>
>>
>> Well, using the word "right" here introduces a great deal of
>> ambiguity. You could be referring to a legal or moral right, which
>> are very different from each other. One suggests that we're all
>> entitled to own guns, and the other suggests that American law
>> dictates that we can own guns, regardless of whether it is "right" or
>> "wrong." One is indisputable, and the other is highly questionable.
>> Of course, justifying something by saying that it's a tradition isn't
>> that good of an argument; slavery used to be a good-old American
>> tradition, as were many other practices we now consider to be
>> outdated, polygamy among them, depending on where you're from (some
>> places in Arizona approve).
>>
>>
>>> Growing up I spent my summers
>>> in Africa, and I saw things that offended my that are far to morbid to
>>> mention here, I did not offend them by sharing my thoughts of these
>>> customs, I looked the other way and left, if that pic offends you push
>>> delete.
>>
>>
>> This is such a strange analogy that I really don't know what to make
>> of it. You're comparing the fact that people here dislike guns
>> because of the higher murder, crime, and suicide rates that go along
>> with them, to the fact that you saw horrible things in Africa and put
>> them out of mind.
>> Well, living in America, where many people do tend to own guns, it's
>> hard to "push delete" and make them all disappear. Namely because I
>> live here. It's one thing to say that tragic things happen a place
>> that's horribly governed with little law, and it's another to say that
>> we have guns here, in my homeland, and people dislike it.
>> Very different. Very, very different.
>> Honestly, bad analogy.
>>
>>> I noticed a post that mentioned a statistic from the FBI
>>> website, 9,369 firearms related murders in the U.S. in 2002, another
>>> statistic to compare this to is the great genocide in Rwanda, 800,000
>>> murdered with machete's.
>>
>>
>> Here's a good page:
>>
>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
>>
>> For a country with more guns *and better infrastructure* than any
>> other, we're not doing too well on the charts - unless you think the
>> top spot's a good one to hold.
>> You just compared the US to Rwanda.
>> Again, bad analogy. I'd like to point out that if they'd had as many
>> guns in Rwanda as we have here in the US, barring munition shortages,
>> it's highly likely that more than 800,000 people would have died.
>> Just pointing it out....
>>
>>
>>> I assure you, in the right hands some sharp
>>> Chinga, or Seymchan slices that are for sale in several rooms in
>>> Tucson could dispatch one's life just as fast as a firearm.
>>
>>
>> Just as fast...maybe, but...you're a fool if you're comparing stabbing
>> someone to shooting them.
>> I'll say it again --
>> It's one thing to pull a trigger, and it's another to slit someone's
>> throat. I've known a few people in my life who have pulled a trigger
>> one someone else, and I know for a fact that none of them have ever
>> gone after someone with a knife. It really does take a different sort
>> of person.
>>
>>
>>> Peter
>>> Davidson, those who know me would probably agree that I am someone
>>> that could be pigeon holed into some Hick-Redneck category, Peter, I
>>> am not offended by your prejudice, I am proud of my heritage growing
>>> up on farms and ranches, oh yeah, I am a NRA life member too.
>>
>>
>> Eh, it's a culture that people tend to view negatively, but every
>> culture has its drawbacks. "Redneck" crap aside, I think that it's
>> generally a stupid thing to own a gun, as supported by statistics
>> which suggest that you're more than twice as likely to die from murder
>> or suicide if you own one.
>> Again, that's your choice to make, but...it also means that there are
>> thousands of guns around me thanks to people like you, meaning that
>> all of the people like you who made that same choice are upping the
>> odds that I'll be held up by some fellow while walking back from the
>> library late at night, which isn't that cool, in my opinion.
>>
>>
>>> I trust
>>> that all of you that are so offended by this pic do not subscribe to
>>> cable, or satellite television services, nor do you attend movies with
>>> "morbid guns" in them.
>>
>>
>> This is such a strange comment that I really don't have much to say
>> about it...apparently I'm not allowed to see violent films because I
>> believe that people generally aren't "right" in their decision to own
>> guns, needlessly increasing the risk that they and others will die.
>> Of course, if I want to turn that back on you I could simply ask you
>> whether you've seen any apocalyptic films, because if you have, surely
>> you're an advocate of the destruction of the world.......
>> Ugh.
>>
>>
>>> Grow up, just click delete, and spend this much
>>> time finding some useful input for the METEORITE LIST. Maybe I will
>>> post a pic of my cats high up on one of my collection pieces so the
>>> PETA people can have there turn.
>>
>>
>> For someone advocating peoples' not posting their opinions and just
>> pushing the delete button, you're doing a lot to push your own opinion
>> on others.
>>
>> It's posts like these that piss me off more than anything else; trying
>> to get the last word in while telling others to leave it alone.
>>
>> I'll end with this - I read it somewhere and it stuck with me.
>>
>> "Glasses don't see: people see."
>>
>> - A good argument for the abolishment of glasses, no?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Robert Ward
>> ?wrote:
>>> I spent three years training at the finest firearms institution on the
>>> planet learning about every aspect of the industry, and even designing
>>> and manufacturing my own firearms models, I am an expert in the field,
>>> and I assure you they are not "killing tools" and "assault rifles"
>>> when they leave the factory. They are pieces of metal and plastic,
>>> People do the killing, guns are inanimate objects. So Mr. G, I have
>>> been involved with firearms my entire life, ask my friends if they
>>> think I am a morbid person. You say we should not offend our European
>>> friends with our rights and traditions? Growing up I spent my summers
>>> in Africa, and I saw things that offended my that are far to morbid to
>>> mention here, I did not offend them by sharing my thoughts of these
>>> customs, I looked the other way and left, if that pic offends you push
>>> delete. I noticed a post that mentioned a statistic from the FBI
>>> website, 9,369 firearms related murders in the U.S. in 2002, another
>>> statistic to compare this to is the great genocide in Rwanda, 800,000
>>> murdered with machete's. I assure you, in the right hands some sharp
>>> Chinga, or Seymchan slices that are for sale in several rooms in
>>> Tucson could dispatch one's life just as fast as a firearm. Peter
>>> Davidson, those who know me would probably agree that I am someone
>>> that could be pigeon holed into some Hick-Redneck category, Peter, I
>>> am not offended by your prejudice, I am proud of my heritage growing
>>> up on farms and ranches, oh yeah, I am a NRA life member too. I trust
>>> that all of you that are so offended by this pic do not subscribe to
>>> cable, or satellite television services, nor do you attend movies with
>>> "morbid guns" in them. Grow up, just click delete, and spend this much
>>> time finding some useful input for the METEORITE LIST. Maybe I will
>>> post a pic of my cats high up on one of my collection pieces so the
>>> PETA people can have there turn. Robert Ward
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Thu 04 Feb 2010 03:08:23 AM PST