Conservatives and moderates only....

[Pradeep]

A knife is designed to cut. Whether it cuts living flesh (stabbing) or cuts your steak for dinner, it's up to the user.

A firearm is designed to propel a projectile at high speed. Whether it's used to take an animal for consumption, or hit a paper target, or shoot someone in self-defense or murder, is up to the user.

They are both tools.

Black males between 15 and 24 are far more likely to die via firearm homicide, than white males of the same age. That's not domestic violence. That's drug and gang activity (not to say that white people don't also engage in the same).

 

[its.fubar]

A knife is designed to cut. Whether it cuts living flesh (stabbing) or cuts your steak for dinner, it's up to the user.

A firearm is designed to propel a projectile at high speed. Whether it's used to take an animal for consumption, or hit a paper target, or shoot someone in self-defense or murder, is up to the user.

They are both tools.

Black males between 15 and 24 are far more likely to die via firearm homicide, than white males of the same age. That's not domestic violence. That's drug and gang activity (not to say that white people don't also engage in the same).

You are quite correct in assuming they are both tools but where you are incorrect is assuming that is the knifes main function whereas a firearm is its main function.

regardless of the fact that black males between !5 and 24 are far more likely to die via firearm homicide, than white males of the same age for what ever reason you maybe correct in assuming that but homicide and domestic violence in the homes is still number one in the USA.

Check out
http://www.silcom.com/~paladin/madv/stats2.html

 

[Howell]

fubar, let's assume for a second that you are correct that a majority of domestic violence related homicides that occur in the home are as a result of a gun shot wound. What does this prove?

 

[Pradeep]

[
You are quite correct in assuming they are both tools but where you are incorrect is assuming that is the knifes main function whereas a firearm is its main function.

regardless of the fact that black males between !5 and 24 are far more likely to die via firearm homicide, than white males of the same age for what ever reason you maybe correct in assuming that but homicide and domestic violence in the homes is still number one in the USA.

Check out
http://www.silcom.com/~paladin/madv/stats2.html

From your link:

"WOMEN KILLED BY PARTNERS/SPOUSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to FBI statistics, 30% of female murder victims in 1990, the
last year for which statistics are available, were killed by their
husbands or boyfriends. That is approximately 3000 women. (Caroline
Knapp, "A Plague of Murders: Open Season on Women, The Boston Phoenix,
August 1992)"

So 70% of female murder victims weren't killed by their husband or boyfriend. The majority weren't killed in a domestic violence incident. Doesn't this make your argument completely mute?

 

[Pradeep]

Also where in your link does it mention whether a gun, a knife or some other implement was used?

I put it to you that the knife was originally created out of flint, attached to a stick and used as a spear to kill animals in the time when man learnt to walk on two legs. It wasn't used to peel apples. Since that time it has been adapted to other uses, just as a gun has been adapted to roles other than just killing.

 

[Mercutio]

Other than sport-shooting, can you name any? 'Cause when I see a handgun, all I can think is that someone wants to have a convienent way to carry around an instrument of death.

Also, mubs, you've mentioned being ignored before. I don't think you are (then again, I might be wrong). Seems to me that those who post more get more replies.

Incidently, as one of the left-wing types that Flagreen is railing against in this thread I'd like to say a few things: 1.) I don't hate anyone here personally, but I can honestly say there are some ideologies are represented her that deserve a lot worse than they get and 2.) Even when I was a moderator, I never acted in that capacity to silence anyone for posting political messages. If the Giver wanted to spew BS all day, I let him... however, as an individual, I'm just as well within my right to stand up and say how stupid I think someone else's opinions are. It's not the duty of a moderator to prevent or restrict debate, so long as the bounds of good taste and the utility of this site are not compromised.

And insofar as it might be possible, I see most of the other members of SF as generally rightist, just as flagreen sees a vast left-wing conspiracy. I believe this is probably the result of two people with generally extreme political opinion looking back at those in the center.

 

[its.fubar]

Pradeep: All I was suggesting was that domestic violence is the number one crime in the USA today furthermore if you have some kind of weapon in your home you are more likely to use it .

I suggest that you read again the link
Quote:
More than twice as many women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends as are murdered by strangers. (Arthur Kellerman, "Men, Women and Murder," The Journal of Trauma, July 17, 1992, pp. 1-5)

 

[Will Rickards WT]

I don't bother much with the political threads.
But I'm probably considered conservative.

 

[flagreen]

I'm not "railing" against anyone in this thread. In fact I've been a perfect Gentleman about the entire thing.

I think "time" has hit the nail right on the head. What is needed is effective moderation which is in my opinion lacking. How to bring that about however is beyond me.

The emotional reaction of some of those who have replied in this thread is befuddling.

 

[its.fubar]

fubar, let's assume for a second that you are correct that a majority of domestic violence related homicides that occur in the home are as a result of a gun shot wound. What does this prove?

Howell, All I am suggesting is the attitude in owning a weapon is yesterday's thinking because it is far too easy to acquire them, let us consider this hypotheses there are no weapons do you not think there would be less crime on the streets and in the homes.

 

[Howell]

What is needed is effective moderation which is in my opinion lacking.

I'm not sure how you are defining "effective moderation" within the context of a discussion. Do you mean staying focused on a topic?

 

[Howell]

fubar, let's assume for a second that you are correct that a majority of domestic violence related homicides that occur in the home are as a result of a gun shot wound. What does this prove?

Howell, All I am suggesting is the attitude in owning a weapon is yesterday's thinking because it is far too easy to acquire them, let us consider this hypotheses there are no weapons do you not think there would be less crime on the streets and in the homes.

No, I think the level of crime would be just as bad or worse were there no firearms available. Maybe the severity of a wound would not be as bad. An ax handle or spoon can be used as a weapon. If someone wants to weild power over another, for whatever reason, they only need to be more powerful or have the effect of the illusion of power.

 

[flagreen]

What is needed is effective moderation which is in my opinion lacking.

I'm not sure how you are defining "effective moderation" within the context of a discussion. Do you mean staying focused on a topic?

What I am speaking about are those things which I listed in my opening post. That is that all members be treated with respect as is required by the rules. Mocking, insulting or deriding the opinions of others is not "respectful". "Attacking" others verbally is not respectful either, whether or not profanity is used in doing so.

By "effective" moderation I mean timely enforcement of the rules. For example I could say that so and so's opinion is "stupid as fuck". First of all unless someone actually complained to the mods nothing would be done. But even if a complaint was made, for me to be censured for the remark would require a vote among the moderators. That could take several days to complete and the question of whether or not the rules were violated would undoubtedly be hashed over throughly by the mods before anything were done. More than likely, the end result would be that nothing were done.

 

[Mercutio]

In other words, you don't like it when other people feel the need to in-no-uncertain terms disagree with you.

 

[Howell]

Sarcasm much? Bill does not mind disagreement. He has problems with disrespect and degeneration into attacks rather than explaination. Some people are not mature enough to not degererate. Does that mean that non-mature posters should be relgated to the kiddie-corner?

 

[its.fubar]

fubar, let's assume for a second that you are correct that a majority of domestic violence related homicides that occur in the home are as a result of a gun shot wound. What does this prove?

Howell, All I am suggesting is the attitude in owning a weapon is yesterday's thinking because it is far too easy to acquire them, let us consider this hypotheses there are no weapons do you not think there would be less crime on the streets and in the homes.

No, I think the level of crime would be just as bad or worse were there no firearms available. Maybe the severity of a wound would not be as bad. An ax handle or spoon can be used as a weapon. If someone wants to weild power over another, for whatever reason, they only need to be more powerful or have the effect of the illusion of power.

Howell, to Quote your words: Maybe the severity of a wound would not be as bad: don't you think that would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Howell]

Howell, to Quote your words: Maybe the severity of a wound would not be as bad: don't you think that would be a step in the right direction.

If someone wants to kill someone they will do it. By AK-47 or by broken bottle or by their own two hands. In addition, now the most vulnerable victims are utterly defenseless. The severity of violent crimes may decrease (it really depends on the intent of the criminal) but the number of incidents would most certainly increase.

 

[flagreen]

Sarcasm much? Bill does not mind disagreement. He has problems with disrespect and degeneration into attacks rather than explaination. Some people are not mature enough to not degererate. Does that mean that non-mature posters should be relgated to the kiddie-corner?

You are correct when you say that I do not mind disagreement. In fact I thrive on it which is why participate in these discussions to the extent which I do.

As for the question of whether non-mature posters should be regulated to the kiddie-corner or not, let me answer that by asking if you wish to enforce the rules or not. If you do then take action when you see someone being disrespectful, delete the post and warn the offender or whatever you feel is appropriate. If you don't wish to enforce the rules then just continue as we are going now.

The main role of the moderators around here in practice has been to moderate the moderators when they attempt to moderate the membership. That's pretty much all they do.

 

[Mercutio]

Sarcasm much? Bill does not mind disagreement. He has problems with disrespect and degeneration into attacks rather than explaination. Some people are not mature enough to not degererate. Does that mean that non-mature posters should be relgated to the kiddie-corner?

Sarcasm? Me? Surely you jest. If I say all conservatives are complete and total morons who have never in the history of time been right about anything, I mean it. Unless I put a "" after that sentence, in which case you might realize that I'm kidding. But usually I'm not, because I really do hate you people. Actually I hate people generally, so perhaps that's not the best statement. Nonetheless, there are some people I hate more than others and, well, congratulations, you made the list.

No amount of explanation in an online forum will change his Bill's, or your, my mine. Each of us has a well-reasoned opinion (well, I do, any... I'll extend an olive branch and assume the rest of you do, too) and set of life experiences that can be devolved to a system of political beliefs. Why waste the time trying to change someone else's in the limited medium we have here? Bill can sit and quote Heritage Foundation position papers all day long. I could if I so chose dig up the liturgical responses from, say, the Center for American Progress. He goes "Weekly Standard", I follow with "Utne Reader" or "adbusters" or whatever.
Assuming "debate" hit that level here, what would it accomplish? It'd prove that Bill spends a lot of time reading media that's targetted to neoconservative mouth-breathers, while I spend a lot of time reading up in anticorporate whiney liberal rags. That type of discourse is already being carried out on just about every level of mass media, and I don't see much need to reiterate it.

 

[flagreen]

Mercutio,

I have no problem with you "hating" whoever you please. But you haven't the right to take a dump on those who you hate in this forum.

None of us have any rights here - only priviliges granted through membership provided that we follow the rules.

And the rules should be followed by everyone.

If you see no point in discussing politics then by all means do not. Others however do find politics of interest and should be free to discuss them if they so desire without having to put up with abuse from anyone.

 

[Mercutio]

Bill, I don't believe I've made any specific attacks on you. I have never made any claim of liking or respecting your political ideals and I absolutely can be vocal about things that I dislike. I don't feel there is anything wrong with this; it's much the same as when certain "people" spent all their time complaining about "Slick Willy" and the people who voted for him. If you think what I say about the man you think is president is offensive, hey, listen to what the dimwitted morons on your side of the fence say about me.

Given the tone presented in the titles of those books, anyone care to guess why I take the tone I do?

 

[its.fubar]

Howell, to Quote your words: Maybe the severity of a wound would not be as bad: don't you think that would be a step in the right direction.

If someone wants to kill someone they will do it. By AK-47 or by broken bottle or by their own two hands. In addition, now the most vulnerable victims are utterly defenseless. The severity of violent crimes may decrease (it really depends on the intent of the criminal) but the number of incidents would most certainly increase.

Howell, You might be correct in your assumption but one thing is for certain a so called civilized society does not need to make it easy for these people.

 

[Pradeep]

fubar, let's assume for a second that you are correct that a majority of domestic violence related homicides that occur in the home are as a result of a gun shot wound. What does this prove?

Howell, All I am suggesting is the attitude in owning a weapon is yesterday's thinking because it is far too easy to acquire them, let us consider this hypotheses there are no weapons do you not think there would be less crime on the streets and in the homes.

Your hypothesis is fine. Unfortunately the real world is not that way. When you pass laws that restrict the ownership of firearms, they do not effect the criminals who already have guns. In a fantasy world you could pass a law banning all guns, knives and sharp pointy sticks. Then everyone, criminals included, would hand them in. Nobody would make anymore in backyard operations. There wouldn't be anymore shootings.

In the real world, criminals would keep hold of them, the law abiding citizens would hand them in, and the criminals would be safer than ever.

As for them being to easy to obtain, a law-abiding person who wants to purchase a gun in the US has to pass an instant-background check (to see if he had a criminal record) before they can purchase one. A handgun can be more difficult to purchase, depending on the state.

A criminal doesn't buy guns from dealers, he buys them out of the boot of a car, and doesn't worry about background checks.

 

[Pradeep]

Pradeep: All I was suggesting was that domestic violence is the number one crime in the USA today furthermore if you have some kind of weapon in your home you are more likely to use it .

I suggest that you read again the link
Quote:
More than twice as many women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends as are murdered by strangers. (Arthur Kellerman, "Men, Women and Murder," The Journal of Trauma, July 17, 1992, pp. 1-5)

Let us say that 30% of women are killed by their husbands/boyfriends. If twice the level of murder by stranger, that must mean that 15% are murdered by strangers. That leaves 55%. Who are these people? If not strangers, or partners? Acquaintances? Other women? Then the biggest killer of women are acquaintances?

Dr Arthur Kellerman is in fact a sham, and has been completely discredited.

http://www.libertybelles.org/education/kellermanflyer.pdf

Kellerman myth: A person who had a gun in his or her home was 2.7 times more likely to be a victim of homicide than someone who did not.

Fact: In fact, Kellerman found that having a gun in the home ranked fifth out of six risk factors in the victims' lives. Using illegal drugs leads to a 5.7 times risk of being murdered, being a renter 4.4 times, having any household member hit or hurt in a fight 4.4 times, living alone 3.7 times, guns in the household 2.7 times, and a household member arrester, 2.5 times.

 

[time]

The main role of the moderators around here in practice has been to moderate the moderators when they attempt to moderate the membership.

Unfortunately, I think that pithy comment sums things up all too well, although it might be more relevant to the admins ...

'm not sure how you are defining "effective moderation" within the context of a discussion. Do you mean staying focused on a topic?

Howell, I find your question troubling on two levels. Firstly, because I reiterated what moderation meant in an earlier post, and secondly, that as a moderator you had to ask. :-?

Is it possible that SF moderators have been given insufficient guidance, or perhaps feel intimidated about actual moderating? By and large, these forums need remarkably little moderation, but that doesn't mean none.

It's also true that this thread has been badly hijacked without anyone (not just moderators) saying anything, which I also find disappointing. One could simply blame its.fubar, who effectively started the hijack, but Pradeep launched himself into a frenzy of troll feeding that even extended to Howell (and Mercutio for half a post).

Consider yourselves smacked.

 

[its.fubar]

Pradeep: All I was suggesting was that domestic violence is the number one crime in the USA today furthermore if you have some kind of weapon in your home you are more likely to use it .

I suggest that you read again the link
Quote:
More than twice as many women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends as are murdered by strangers. (Arthur Kellerman, "Men, Women and Murder," The Journal of Trauma, July 17, 1992, pp. 1-5)

Let us say that 30% of women are killed by their husbands/boyfriends. If twice the level of murder by stranger, that must mean that 15% are murdered by strangers. That leaves 55%. Who are these people? If not strangers, or partners? Acquaintances? Other women? Then the biggest killer of women are acquaintances?

Dr Arthur Kellerman is in fact a sham, and has been completely discredited.

http://www.libertybelles.org/education/kellermanflyer.pdf

Kellerman myth: A person who had a gun in his or her home was 2.7 times more likely to be a victim of homicide than someone who did not.

Fact: In fact, Kellerman found that having a gun in the home ranked fifth out of six risk factors in the victims' lives. Using illegal drugs leads to a 5.7 times risk of being murdered, being a renter 4.4 times, having any household member hit or hurt in a fight 4.4 times, living alone 3.7 times, guns in the household 2.7 times, and a household member arrester, 2.5 times.

Pradeep: I suggest that you consider the source of this information you present here I believe that you will find it is all coming from a right wing sources Which obviously have everything to lose.

anyone can twist any information to suit themselves but the fact of the matter is people are dying because they have weapons in their home.

 

[Pradeep]

Ok, last post about this, I promise time

Look, I know it's hard to understand fubar, but the quote I gave you is from Kellerman him-bloody-self.

Kellerman has his own agenda, he got funding from the CDC (i.e. from American taxpayers) to prove that legally owned guns cause crime. It is in his interest to create absurd statistics which have been refuted time and again. Kellerman counting criminals who are shot during home invasions or during confrontations with police as "victims" is a prime example of his statistical shenanigans.

Far more people are saved by having guns than are hurt by them in the USA. If you don't like them, stay in socialist Europe.

 

[bahngeist]

... Others however do find politics of interest and should be free to discuss them if they so desire without having to put up with abuse from anyone.

"And those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks either."

You complain about persons with right of center views being driven away from political discussions by offhand remarks; but have you ever considered that you yourself have done the same to others who held/hold views contrary to your own? Last March in some thread in the storagereview forum someone and myself expressed relatively moderate but critical viewpoints re. the Iraq war that were fairly similar; you replied by suggesting that he and I "diddle" each other (not the expression you used). After that I felt disincilined from participating in that (and this) forum.

Yes that is a different forum, and it was an emotionally charged topic and time for many people -- but in far less volatile situations you (Flagreen) often verge on being more that just a little dismissive toward those who express viewpoints that are contrary to your own. If you wish to be treated with respect by others who disagree with a particular viewpoint of your's, then you should extend that same courtesy consistently. To do not do so is hypocritical.

And to put matters in clear perspective: I have nothing against you in any way, and find your viewpoints interesting and thought provoking on many occasions-- other times they are 'mildly' irritating, but that is to be expected in free and open discourse

 

[Mercutio]

To that I add that anyone who is arguing a political position in a public forum has exposed his or her opinions to both examination and mockery, and he should expect more than a little of both.

One more thing: I'm dismissive and openly contemptuous of pretty much everything I don't like. That's very much part of my personality. I'm hoping that everyone here is aware of that. I'm opinionated and direct, and using words to express the misery and bitterness of life is something I appear to be good at.

If I'm making Bill uncomfortable, well, good. But for the rest of you, if you have opinions, express them. That's what the Pub is for.

 

[flagreen]

... Others however do find politics of interest and should be free to discuss them if they so desire without having to put up with abuse from anyone.

"And those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks either."

You complain about persons with right of center views being driven away from political discussions by offhand remarks; but have you ever considered that you yourself have done the same to others who held/hold views contrary to your own? Last March in some thread in the storagereview forum someone and myself expressed relatively moderate but critical viewpoints re. the Iraq war that were fairly similar; you replied by suggesting that he and I "diddle" each other (not the expression you used). After that I felt disincilined from participating in that (and this) forum.

Yes that is a different forum, and it was an emotionally charged topic and time for many people -- but in far less volatile situations you (Flagreen) often verge on being more that just a little dismissive toward those who express viewpoints that are contrary to your own. If you wish to be treated with respect by others who disagree with a particular viewpoint of your's, then you should extend that same courtesy consistently. To do not do so is hypocritical.

And to put matters in clear perspective: I have nothing against you in any way, and find your viewpoints interesting and thought provoking on many occasions-- other times they are 'mildly' irritating, but that is to be expected in free and open discourse

1) As you say I am concerned that other members are being driven away as apparently you were from SR - though not as a result of anything which was said in this forum.

2) I don't recall the particular incident you mention at SR. Nor am I inclined to respond to it when it is taken wholly out of context (to what was I responding?) and has been paraphrased by you rather than my own words being directly quoted.

3) I am human... therefore I am hypocritical, dismissive and / or contemptuous of others from time to time. I am not proud of that nor in most cases is such behavior offensive by design. By and large however I do try to be fair with folks unless they choose to be less than fair with me. If I have ever unfairly "attacked" you please accept my appolgy no matter where the offense took place.

4) I feel no personal animosity towards you whatsoever.

 

[flagreen]

Mercutio,

If I'm making Bill uncomfortable, well, good. But for the rest of you, if you have opinions, express them. That's what the Pub is for.

Come on now I think you know me well enough to realize that you do not make me feel uncomfortable.

 

[bahngeist]

[quote="flagreen]... I don't recall the particular incident you mention at SR. Nor am I inclined to respond to it when it is taken wholly out of context ... If I have ever unfairly "attacked" you please accept my appolgy no matter where the offense took place ... [/quote]

It was perhaps -- just a tad ;-) -- unfair of me to use an example from sometime last March, but it was the best one to use to make the point I wished to make. As such, I wasn't expecting but am not at all surprised by your direct response -- the apology is appreciated and wholeheartedly accepted.

 

[its.fubar]

Ok, last post about this, I promise time

Look, I know it's hard to understand fubar, but the quote I gave you is from Kellerman him-bloody-self.

Kellerman has his own agenda, he got funding from the CDC (i.e. from American taxpayers) to prove that legally owned guns cause crime. It is in his interest to create absurd statistics which have been refuted time and again. Kellerman counting criminals who are shot during home invasions or during confrontations with police as "victims" is a prime example of his statistical shenanigans.

Far more people are saved by having guns than are hurt by them in the USA. If you don't like them, stay in socialist Europe.

As you say Kellerman has his own agenda and he got funding from the CDC (i.e. from American taxpayers) and from this I suppose you are suggesting the American taxpayers have never bean cheated before and everything done in there name is above suspicion and totally legal.

 

[CityK]

Good grief! Are my eyes decieved, or is its.fubar actually engaging people in actual discussion?

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio,

If I'm making Bill uncomfortable, well, good. But for the rest of you, if you have opinions, express them. That's what the Pub is for.

Come on now I think you know me well enough to realize that you do not make me feel uncomfortable.

Hmmph. I'll remember to try harder next time.

 

[Howell]

To that I add that anyone who is arguing a political position in a public forum has exposed his or her opinions to both examination and mockery, and he should expect more than a little of both.

You need to change your attitude. That attitude is wholly unacceptable and more than a little surprising coming from an admin. From StorageForum’s Rules of Conduct

Our motto: show respect at all times.

And frankly I've noticed your dismissiveness. It is both childish and rude and personally annoying to me; even when I don't have a dog in the fight. It makes you look small. I wish you would express the foundations of your opinions rather than glibly dismissing another's opinion.

I had previously cut you slack. You should think twice before leaning against your bitterness as an acceptable substitute for discussion.

 

[Howell]

Ok, last post about this, I promise time

Look, I know it's hard to understand fubar, but the quote I gave you is from Kellerman him-bloody-self.

Kellerman has his own agenda, he got funding from the CDC (i.e. from American taxpayers) to prove that legally owned guns cause crime. It is in his interest to create absurd statistics which have been refuted time and again. Kellerman counting criminals who are shot during home invasions or during confrontations with police as "victims" is a prime example of his statistical shenanigans.

Far more people are saved by having guns than are hurt by them in the USA. If you don't like them, stay in socialist Europe.

As you say Kellerman has his own agenda and he got funding from the CDC (i.e. from American taxpayers) and from this I suppose you are suggesting the American taxpayers have never bean cheated before and everything done in there name is above suspicion and totally legal.

Fubar, this looks suspiciously like trolling. If you wish to discuss specific facts then do so. And do it in a new thread. The purpose of this thread is indicated in the first post.

 

[Mercutio]

You need to change your attitude. That attitude is wholly unacceptable and more than a little surprising coming from an admin. From StorageForum’s Rules of Conduct

Our motto: show respect at all times.

That's BS, Howell. There's nothing wrong with taking the position of a parodist, nor with expressing discontent regarding those outside this forum in generalization. That is, IMO a very different thing from any sort of direct personal attack, and that's the point where I draw the line for myself.

Hey, I'm sorry if I don't have tons of patience to explain the particular foundation for my opinions. Usually I realize that there's other things I would rather be doing than that. I care very deeply about the things that I opine on, but knowing that no one but the three or four people on SF who hold distaff opinions are probably the only ones who will examine them - and subsequently be unmoved - doesn't lend itself to motivation.

 

[time]

Merc, your political posts lately are beginning to sound like Coug's. He freely admits he has a problem with his temper.

Despite what you seem to think, your arguments would have more power if you refrained from going "nya nya" quite so much. IMHO.

Does this help?

 

[timwhit]

Sorry to say anything offtopic, but where is Coug, haven't seen him since I got back into town on Sunday.