Iran: Nukes, good; e-cigs, bad

[Frankie]

I have one. If anybody broke in my apartment, chances are I would use a kitchen knife instead. More handy, just grab it and go. As lethal as gun in close quarters. No danger of a ricochet hurting some of the family.

 

[leaford]

Leaford, can I tell you a story? Twenty years ago I was quite involved in target shooting, nothing heavy calibre, just paper punching, at the time completely legal. My wife and I were moving house and we put an offer in on a house, We lost, no big deal, bought another house instead.

A few years later I was sitting in the newsroom of my employer at the time, trying to fix their computer systems, I spent the whole day looking with increasing horror at the rushes coming in. On that day Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 primary kids and their teacher.

If we had got that house earlier, my son would have been in that classroom. The day after is happened I handed my Firearms Certificate and guns in. I've never touched a gun again.

So, you felt your gun use was responsible? Did your gun ownership contribute in some way? Did the shooter get his inspiration from watching you target shoot? Or did holding the gun make you want to do the same thing the shooter did? I mock, yes.

But the serious point is, the shooter is evil, not the gun.

Now here's a story of my own. A few years ago there was a school shooting incident here, too, at the Appalachian Law School. Well, of course the US has had several, but in that particular one, an off duty policeman and a private citizen with a concealed carry permit STOPPED AND APPREHENDED the perpetrator with handguns they retrieved from their vehicles. He had already killed 3 people, but he was stopped before he could continue killing more. This was before the campus police arrived, long before they could have arrived.

Another time, in Pearl, Mississippi, a principal retrieved a handgun and apprehended a student shooter who was trying to escape after his rampage. The damage was done, but who knows how much more the kid might have done if he had escaped?

I like those stories much better than the ones like Columbine, Virginia Tech, or your story; where "gun-free" zones become killing grounds for people who KNOW no one will be able to stop them.

Guns DO KILL PEOPLE. end of story. If you want to justify the personal holding of firearms, please try, but shooting the British is no longer a valid reason.

And if that isn't just the absolute worst mischaracterization of what I've said, I don't know what is.

Really, everything I wrote, and you take away from it "to shoot the british?" That's what you think I said? REALLY?

 

[leaford]

well i dont know that many 8 year olds and teachers carry guns as standard classroom equiptment.

You just gotta look at American campus shootings, ( take your pick , there's plenty to choose from ) to see Guns serve no purpose in civilian hands.

See my last post. Guns in CRIMINAL hands are dangerous and do evil deeds. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens can SAVE lives from those evil people.

 

[leaford]

I have one. If anybody broke in my apartment, chances are I would use a kitchen knife instead. More handy, just grab it and go. As lethal as gun in close quarters. No danger of a ricochet hurting some of the family.

Never bring a knife to a gun fight is all I can say.

 

[PeteMcArthur]

So, you felt your gun use was responsible? Did your gun ownership contribute in some way? Did the shooter get his inspiration from watching you target shoot? Or did holding the gun make you want to do the same thing the shooter did? I mock, yes.

But the serious point is, the shooter is evil, not the gun.

Now here's a story of my own. A few years ago there was a school shooting incident here, too, at the Appalachian Law School. Well, of course the US has had several, but in that particular one, an off duty policeman and a private citizen with a concealed carry permit STOPPED AND APPREHENDED the perpetrator with handguns they retrieved from their vehicles. He had already killed 3 people, but he was stopped before he could continue killing more. This was before the campus police arrived, long before they could have arrived.

Another time, in Pearl, Mississippi, a principal retrieved a handgun and apprehended a student shooter who was trying to escape after his rampage. The damage was done, but who knows how much more the kid might have done if he had escaped?

I like those stories much better than the ones like Columbine, Virginia Tech, or your story; where "gun-free" zones become killing grounds for people who KNOW no one will be able to stop them.


And if that isn't just the absolute worst mischaracterization of what I've said, I don't know what is.

Really, everything I wrote, and you take away from it "to shoot the british?" That's what you think I said? REALLY?

Well Leaford, I'm sad that you can't see a small attempt on my part to bring humour into a serious situation.

If it is more difficult to get hold of guns, gun crime goes down, look at the relative violence rates, look at the deaths. I know I will never convince you, if you like guns.

As for Dunblane, did I feel my owning a gun contributed? Yes Absolutely. If there had been less people interested in guns, less gun clubs, less guns.

The US by it's very constitution is a gun culture, that's something you have to live with.

The argument of guns saving life only applies if the Goodies have guns and the Baddies don't. Are you seriously saying that in the US more lives are saved by guns than taken by guns?

 

[ApOsTle51]

Hamilton burst into the assembly hall, where a class of 5- and 6-year-old children was having gym lessons and opened fire. He first shot at several of the teachers. Hamilton then turned his guns on the frightened children and shot at them as they tried to scramble to safety under chairs and inside closets. Screams echoed through the gymnasium as tiny bodies sunk to the floor in pools of blood.

Abigail McLennan, Brett McKinnon, Charlotte Dunn, David Kerr (Victims)

Emily Morton, Emma Crozier, Hannah Scott, Joanna Ross (Victims)

John Petrie, Kevin Hasell, Megan Turner, Melissa Currie (Victims)

Mhairi McBeath, Ross Irvine, Sophie North, Victoria Clydesdale (Victims)​

Hamilton was no more a convicted criminal than me for example. He held his guns and ammunition legally.
there is no place in civilian hands for Guns...period

 

[leaford]

Well Leaford, I'm sad that you can't see a small attempt on my part to bring humour into a serious situation.

You can't SEE humor on the net, that's why the Net Gods gave us Smilies.

If it is more difficult to get hold of guns, gun crime goes down, look at the relative violence rates, look at the deaths. I know I will never convince you, if you like guns.

I try to argue the evidence, so sufficient evidence would convince me, but the evidence is on my side, at least in the urban US. Crime rates have gone up when handguns have been banned, and gone down when concealed carry laws were passed.

The problem with the reasoning that making guns illegal will deter crime is that criminals break the law. Now they have guns, and they know law abiding folk don't.

As for Dunblane, did I feel my owning a gun contributed? Yes Absolutely. If there had been less people interested in guns, less gun clubs, less guns.

And how would that stop that one evil person? Was he in your gun club? Would he not have gotten his if you hadn't had yours? Sorry, but you and your gun have NOTHING to do with him and his. Evil people do the evil that they do with guns, knives, baseball bats,cars, bombs. Disarming yourself does nothing to stop that, it just leaves you defenseless.

The US by it's very constitution is a gun culture, that's something you have to live with.

The argument of guns saving life only applies if the Goodies have guns and the Baddies don't.

Both my examples were against ARMED perpetrators. Good people with guns stopping evil people with guns. And if the Baddies have guns, but the goodies don't? Columbine.

Are you seriously saying that in the US more lives are saved by guns than taken by guns?

Of course. Every cop in the US is armed. Most of them go through their careers without shooting anyone. But they use their guns every day. To stop, hold, and apprehend criminals. Or even without drawing it, cooling off potential violence with the silent threat of the holstered gun. Actual shootings are statistically rare. But just ask any cop if their gun has saved their life, or the lives of others, whether they've fired it in action or not.

Of course, you can't collect statistics on that.

Similarly, we'll never really know how many burglaries have been prevented by a homeowner brandishing a weapon, or muggers scared away from an armed mark; unless shots are fired, it doesn't get counted.

For god's sake, there are hundreds of times more guns in law abiding, peaceful hands than in the hands of criminals. Millions of handguns are manufactured every year in the US and a few thousands are used in crimes.

Are responsible law abiding citizens really responsible in your eyes for the gun violence done by criminals? Are they all tarred by the same brush?

 

[leaford]

Hamilton was no more a convicted criminal than me for example. He held his guns and ammunition legally.
there is no place in civilian hands for Guns...period

Maybe if someone else there had had a weapon Hamilton could have been stopped before racking up that death toll. We'll never know. What we do know is that when the killer is the only person armed, innocents will die, and no one can stop him.

 

[PeteMcArthur]

Leaford we will never be able to debate on this topic. I'm too emotionally involved in this. All I know is that most people on the planet do not live in a society where guns are freely available. All I can do is quote you the statistics, and yes I did steal the figures from one of the US pro gun control sites.

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated)

Homicide Suicide Other (inc accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.9 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland(1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales(2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

OK even with a monospaced font they dont line up. Can't be bothered doing it with spaces

 

[leaford]

And can I just ask everyone one favor, please?

I haven't called anyone a peace-nik, or refereed to your views as fuzzy-brained liberalism, or said you are just products of a leftist euro culture, or anything dismissive like that.

Please don't dismiss my views by saying I am a "product of a gun culture." As if I do not have a mind of my own, to view and consider the evidence. As if, otherwise, I would have the "good sense" to feel differently. That's insulting and disrespectful.

 

[ApOsTle51]

at the end of the day there really is no point to debating the pro's and con's of personal gun ownership. It creates strong emotions in some and not one person here is gonna say " you know...your right..i'm wrong".

Everyone's entitled to their opinion and obviously not everyone is going to agree to it. A forum is too culturally divided for a debate like this to come to any conclusion..it will just go on and on and on until some-one says something that's gonna REALLY offend. So we've all had our little say and expressed our feeling on the matter. It's getting far too serious and close to the bone for anymore respectful debate.

Shall we put a kibosh on this while we still hold at least some respect for each other..

 

[Frankie]

Yes. Let´s leave the guns to the gun-lovers, the nukes to Iran and e-cig talk to ourselves.

Leaford: You are the guru anyway, everybody respects you and loves your videos (and your bird). Those who insulted you probably did not do it on purpose. Just the heat of ther debate sometimes brings cliche expressions automatically to people´s mouths/keyboards.

 

[trog100]

some times thow one has to hear and at least listen to the opposing argument.. never to do so is the road to bigotry and ignorance..

and in spite of leafords free thinking comment none of us really are.. we are the product of our cultures and past life experience..

i am quite prepared to accept the fact that if i was born into different times and places i would hold different views..

there go i but for the grace of god (fate) aint a bad belief.. i recon given the right circumstance i could be either a murderous ....... or a bloody saint.. free will kinda works but only up to a point..

trog

 

[Kate]

There you go making sense again Trog. What's the matter with you lately?

 

[Bertrand]

bump. .

 

[Dr. Russell Fell]

Glad you can admit that you are a fool. So I am to believe that you were involved in the decision to drop the bombs and you care less about your soldiers? Stating it as absolute fact means you must have been there first hand and been a deciding factor on it. Otherwise you are just another anti-government crybaby too scared to fight a war and too scared to fight against it except on an e-smoking forum. If you know all the answers, maybe you should share it with the rest of the world who is obviously too dumb to grasp what you seem to have been born knowing.

Revisionist theorizing. The historical documents show the discussions at the time focused on the war effort, and the US lives that would be lost in an invasion.

leaford, if you really think that the good will of the decision makers for dropping the a bomb was merely to save lives, then i think you're the one dabbling in revisionist theory. I'm pretty sure the dropping the a bomb did the exact opposite.

It's called shock and awe. It's been done numerous times in many wars, and it makes sense logistically. If you scare the living crap out of the enemy (and all would-be enemies that may arise) with a complete and utter devastating blow that has a high number of casualties, the rest of the world acts as a witness to it, which is a pretty good (and barbaric) tactical decision for the sake of continuing to legitimize and secure American hegemony.

Also, a little less than discussed fact, the Emperor of Japan had sent a wire to Stalin outlining a full surrender with the condition of him remaining in power, but only to serve a ceremonial function - much like the Queen of England currently does to this day. Truman, Churchill, and Stalin met in Potsdam Germany on July 17th, 1945 to discuss this. Ironically enough, around the same time, a committee was meeting discussing whether or not the newly created bomb should in fact be dropped. At this committee was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, an indoctrinated war monger but still a decent man at heart, stated the following:

"I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings: first, on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking the world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face." The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude."

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

The bombing was also used to secure its power of Soviet Russia. American policy makers were more and more troubled by Stalin's involvement in the war - not because Stalin was a dictator and guilty of many war crimes himself, but because he posed a legitimate threat to American dominance, both economically and politically, in the Eastern hemisphere. The goal was to cut him and the Soviets out of the "new world" that would be built from Japan's rubble, ushering in an "American Century," a phrase coined during the first World Bank conference - which coincidentally was formed around this time as well. By dropping the bomb, the US forced Japan to give a complete and utter surrender to the US on America's terms (and America's terms only as Soviet Russia, China and Korea were all left out of the reparations process, leading America to be the only country to reap the benefits from Japan's defeat even though these mentioned countries had the most casualties or war and faced the blunt of Japan's horrible war crimes).


James Byrnes, Secretary of State, stated "I cannot speak for the others but it was ever present in my mind that it was important that we have an end to the war before the Russians came in...Neither the President nor I were anxious to have them (the Soviets) enter the war after we had learned of this successful (atomic) test."
Leo Szilard, one of the nuclear physicists present at the discussion and active participant in the development of the bomb, stated "Mr. Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war...Mr. Byrnes view (was) that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more managable in Europe."

 

[Bertrand]

Thanks for that, Doc. I found it interesting. They talk of barbarism, but it's not as though they hadn't already firebombed countless Japanese cities. And it's not as though they didn't know what the effect of that would be, because they kept on doing it. Having said that, the nuclear fission bombs killed less people, and I'm not sure they could have anticipated the long term effects of the radioactive aftermath.

My favourite revisionist history is the one by Gore Vidal, in which Roosevelt is fully aware of the pending attack on Pearl Harbor and lets it go through so he can escape the longstanding non-interventionism of the US. Vidal does a great job at riling up Clive James, but I couldn't find a link to their "discussion" right now. It's not unlike this thread, actually.

 

[GabbyD]

Leaford, looks like you're swinging in the wind out there, so I'll chime in to say I'm 100% with you on the gun thing. But I also know it does no good to argue it with the antis.

Those of you from other places, quoting U.S. stats, need to look deeper. Our highest crime is in cities with gun bans. Look at those stats and not the U.S. as a whole. The campus shootings are taking place in gun-free zones. There are some changes happening on that front though. Some school districts and college campuses are reversing the policy.

I have a choice and I'm glad to have that choice. I choose to protect myself, and yes that includes many hours of frequent practice, training, licensing, background checks. All the things the criminals do not have to do. But my circumstances are a bit different than most. I live rural. Nobody can hear me scream from here. I'm ready to protect myself if need be, and I'm capable of doing so. I fail to see anything horrid about that.

 

[PeteMcArthur]

Leaford, looks like you're swinging in the wind out there, so I'll chime in to say I'm 100% with you on the gun thing. But I also know it does no good to argue it with the antis.

Those of you from other places, quoting U.S. stats, need to look deeper. Our highest crime is in cities with gun bans. Look at those stats and not the U.S. as a whole. The campus shootings are taking place in gun-free zones. There are some changes happening on that front though. Some school districts and college campuses are reversing the policy.

I have a choice and I'm glad to have that choice. I choose to protect myself, and yes that includes many hours of frequent practice, training, licensing, background checks. All the things the criminals do not have to do. But my circumstances are a bit different than most. I live rural. Nobody can hear me scream from here. I'm ready to protect myself if need be, and I'm capable of doing so. I fail to see anything horrid about that.

I don't see the point of continuing this, people are getting offended. There will never be the possibility of compromise, you say the antis will never change, I say the pros will never change. Same thing?

Our cultures and societies are too diverse, the debate should be carried out elsewhere, this is a forum about e-cigs. The pro gun people cannot believe the reaction they get and we cannot understand the logic of guns for everyone.

I'm as much to blame as anyone and I really should learn to ignore off topic debates.

I think the best thing for me to do is not post for a few weeks since my views are causing such a level of anger. I should never have joined the debate, these things always cause hassle and were we all to meet in the flesh I'm sure we would agree about the vast majority of things.

 

[Bertrand]

They're really just parallel conversations whose only interaction is "you are wrong" tacked onto the end. I'm enjoying my own parallel conversation, though.