I bought a gun to prepare for WW3

[dlaing]

OMG. Dave, you're actually using Google to define your world view!

 

Upon what basis for trust in Google do you place your entire perspective on your dark and purply little world??

There is NO more perfect example of the methodology of brainwashing, GROUPTHINK, mind control, indoctrination, and blind stupidity than this.

 

You failed to backup your innuendo.

And now you are attacking Google!?!?!

What, is Google conspiring with Al Jazeera to hide Al Jazeera's alleged profligate propaganda?

 

 

I thought you were looking for examples of profligacy and bias at Al Jazeera. No comment on what I linked, or your support of the message at all. It appears by your comments and lack of response to my direct question that you are in full agreement with the message in the video at the link, and denial of the holocaust fits your idea of "fair and balanced".

 

Will you grow up and stop mooning me?!!?

Since you were too lazy to actually read what I wrote, I will quote it for you to give you a second chance:

"That had almost nothing to do with holocaust denial, just one sentence of many of a rambling guest speaker, presumably edited not by Al Jazeera but by Memri. The sloppy editting is clearly obvious."

I'd reply to the rest but I got to get to work...

Just drop your libelous innuendo and go back to preparing for WWIII when the Remulacs invade Poway.

[Guest ratchethack]

And now you are attacking Google!?!?!

What, is Google conspiring with Al Jazeera to hide Al Jazeera's alleged profligate propaganda?

Uh, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave, are we having another attack of the floating vapors out there on our dark and purply planet this morning?!?!?!

 

I struggle to comprehend how your Remulacian analysis of my post amounts to an attack on Google??

 

I use Google every day, among other search engines. It works fine. My business relies on it, and even depends on it to some degree. We pay for the service according to the value we place on it. Its a tool built and used for a purpose. It's not advertized as a measurement gauge of opinion consensus or a public opinion ranking tool, let alone a tool to determine bias in the media, and in fact it's neither. While Google may the perfect monitor of public opinion on Ramulac, your failure to comprehend your misuse of it is a bit of a problem for you here on earth.

 

I could no more use Google as the basis for determining a ranking of the "bias" of one of our planet's (that's earth, Dave) most profligate propaganda sources (Al Jazeera) than I could use a screwdriver to drive a nail. Attempting to do so illustrates an incredible ignorance of what Google is and what it isn't. But your misuse of it as you've described in the above posts sure is illustrative of y'er vulnerability and susceptibility to be so profoundly manipulated. It explains a great deal about how you must've arrived at so many of your most bizarre beliefs and perceptions, including your absurd characterization of Al Jazeera as "way ahead in the un-biased coverage category".

 

But then, out there in the remote depths of the outer galaxies, in the toxically narcotic nitrous oxide atmosphere of Remulac, you seem to do so many things so differently than we do here on terra firma.

[Guest Nogbad]

I'm with Dave on this thread.

[Guest ratchethack]

I'm with Dave on this thread.

Interesting, Nog. I presume you mean that you agree with Dave that Al Jazeera is "way ahead in the unbiased coverage" category. Are you also in full agreement with the message in the following, then?

The following are excerpts of an interview with Palestinian-Jordanian author Dr. Ibrahim 'Alloush, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on August 23, 2005. To view this clip, visit: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=824

[Guest Nogbad]

Interesting, Nog. I presume you mean that you agree with Dave that Al Jazeera is "way ahead in the unbiased coverage" category. Are you also in full agreement with the message in the following, then?

 

Why should Al Jazeera have to show a higher standard of objectivity than other media outlets? The truth is Hacker, that ALL media are biased in favour of their constituents. I am sure Fox News is equally biased but in a different direction. Same goes for the BBC. Massive bias in favour of European Integration and metrication for example, which flies in the face of majority opinion in the UK. You simply see media that you sympathise with as objective because they pander to your prejudice.

 

I'm not saying that Al Jazeera isn't biased! I am saying that it is no worse than any other TV station. The reason YOU think it is, is because it airs and gives credence to views that you find objectionable.

 

I happen to find your views on gun control both ridiculous and objectionable. However, I don't claim that my position is objective . It is a biased position based on my background and experience. Your problem is you can't see that your position isn't objective either. It is also a position based on your nature, nurture and the society in which you live. It is also a biased position and has no more validity than mine or Dave's.

[Guest ratchethack]

I happen to find your views on gun control both ridiculous and objectionable. However, I don't claim that my position is objective . It is a biased position based on my background and experience. Your problem is you can't see that your position isn't objective either. It is also a position based on your nature, nurture and the society in which you live. It is also a biased position and has no more validity than mine or Dave's.

Well, Nog - I have made no more claims on objectivity here than you have, except to properly distance myself from the poisoning captivity of GOUPTHINK as an overriding operating principle. So I don't think I have much of a "problem" here.

 

However, I must again remind you, it seems, that your characterization of my views on gun control as "ridiculous" and "objectionable" are made quite difficult for you here by the fact that you've brought NOTHING to the dicussion beyond your own speculation and opinion.

 

On the other hand, my opinion, being based on decades of in-depth study as a gun owner, reading a monthly newsletter on the subject of firearms legislation over the same period of time, and not, by the way, limited to simply a National debate (it's a global issue) is summarized by my having brought an unimpeachable reference and posted that reference here as a basis of my opinion. That reference, for the information of any who have NOT been following the International Gun Control issue, happens to have emerged as the unprecedented leading source reference for hard scientific analysis on the long-term studies of gun control across the planet. It has been the standard reference on the science of gun control for 10 years. BTW - This book is NOT a book about gun control in the USA. It is a compilation and analysis of studies done worldwide - including in the UK.

[Guest Nogbad]

On the other hand, my opinion, being based on decades of in-depth study as a gun owner, reading a monthly newsletter on the subject of firearms legislation over the same period of time, and not, by the way, limited to simply a National debate (it's a global issue) is summarized by my having brought an unimpeachable reference and posted that reference here as a basis of my opinion. That reference, for the information of any who have NOT been following the International Gun Control issue, happens to have emerged as the unprecedented leading source reference for hard scientific analysis on the long-term studies of gun control across the planet. It has been the standard reference on the science of gun control for 10 years. BTW - This book is NOT a book about gun control in the USA. It is a compilation and analysis of studies done worldwide - including in the UK.

 

Well Eh Hack That, did I ever purport to offer anything other than my biased and unsubstantiated opinion? No. Policy in a democracy my friend is all about appealing to the biased and unsubstantiated opinions of the maximum number of people so that you get elected.

 

Your much vaunted book was probably written by researchers funded by the NRA and sundry arms manufacturers, and is most likely the GROUPTHINK bible for the good ole gun 'totin groupthinkers of your GROUP.

 

Dave and I belong to a different group or groups, and probably have our own sociological anti-gun studies to refer to if we could be bloody bothered to argue with militarised throwbacks like you.

[Guest ratchethack]

Your much vaunted book was probably written by researchers funded by the NRA and sundry arms manufacturers, and is most likely the GROUPTHINK bible for the good ole gun 'totin groupthinkers of your GROUP.

Now y'er talkin' straight out of the Great Royal Anal Pore. This is more speculation heaped on top of speculation! You could not be more incorrect with this last bit of wild desperation.

 

I always find it fascinating to discover how many people find it so easy to do book reports on books they've never heard of, let alone read. . . . . At such occasions as these, the word "mendacity" springs readily to mind. . . .

 

The Author (as pointed out previously in this thread by Skeeve) was a former gun control advocate and independent researcher who originally set out in search of data supporting the idea that gun proliferation among populations resulted in an INCREASE in crime.

 

The evidence quickly became clear, and contrary to the practices of Junk Scientists, he had the integrity to follow the evidence where it led him. The book was published entirely independent of the NRA and any other arms affiliations. The publisher is The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

 

What GROUP would you MOST like to pigeon-hole/demonize me into, Nog? Dave seems to carry around a very large GROUPTHINK-designed demon bucket with all the sound-byte target names one would expect (as mentioned previously). Perhaps you and Dave share the same demon bucket??

 

Dave and I belong to a different group or groups, and probably have our own sociological anti-gun studies to refer to if we could be bloody bothered to argue with militarised throwbacks like you.

Oh, I see. You PROBABLY have your own anti-gun studies to refer to, but you just can't be bothered now, eh, Nog? Do be sure to drop us a line with any details on this when and if they should ever become clearer to you, won't you?

 

"Militarized throwbacks". Hmmmmm. That's not an Officially Recognized Popular Kulture GROUPTHINK Target Group (as far as I know). . . . Would this be akin to "The Boys in the Backwoods of Idaho" - you know - the guys who dress up in camo and play Rambo Games with guns?? I never met one o' those, but yeah -- I'll bet they're at least a few of 'em out there. . . .

 

The pattern of backpedalling here seems strangely familiar. . . . .

 

Have you now taken to using Dave's wind-powered backhoe to dig y'erself deeper??

 

Matter of fact, the direction of this discussion seems strangely Remulacian. . . . .

 

Did you find a dark and purply planet beneath your feet today, Nog?!

[Guest Nogbad]

Did you find a dark and purply planet beneath your feet today, Nog?!

 

As a matter of fact, I thought I would apply for citizenship. After all, gun totin' redneck exterminators are from Earth. Civilised people are from Remulac it seems.

[Guest ratchethack]

As a matter of fact, I thought I would apply for citizenship. After all, gun totin' redneck exterminators are from Earth. Civilised people are from Remulac it seems.

OMG. . . . . .

 

It seems The Loading has begun. . . . .

 

You haven't by any chance noticed an archer splitting a tree somewhere, have you, Nog?

 

After the Gold Rush

- Neil Young, 1970

 

Well, I dreamed I saw the knights

In armor coming,

Saying something about a queen.

There were peasants singing and

Drummers drumming

And the archer split the tree.

There was a fanfare blowing

To the sun

That was floating on the breeze.

Look at Mother Nature on the run

In the nineteen seventies.

Look at Mother Nature on the run

In the nineteen seventies.

 

I was lying in a burned out basement

With the full moon in my eyes.

I was hoping for replacement

When the sun burst through the sky.

There was a band playing in my head

And I felt like getting high.

I was thinking about what a

Friend had said

I was hoping it was a lie.

Thinking about what a

Friend had said

I was hoping it was a lie.

 

Well, I dreamed I saw the silver

Space ships flying

In the yellow haze of the sun,

There were children crying

And colors flying

All around the chosen ones.

All in a dream, all in a dream

The loading had begun.

Flying Mother Nature's Silver seed

to a new home in the sun.

Flying Mother Nature's

Silver seed to a new home.

[dlaing]

Why should Al Jazeera have to show a higher standard of objectivity than other media outlets? The truth is Hacker, that ALL media are biased in favour of their constituents. I am sure Fox News is equally biased but in a different direction. Same goes for the BBC. Massive bias in favour of European Integration and metrication for example, which flies in the face of majority opinion in the UK. You simply see media that you sympathise with as objective because they pander to your prejudice.

 

I'm not saying that Al Jazeera isn't biased! I am saying that it is no worse than any other TV station. The reason YOU think it is, is because it airs and gives credence to views that you find objectionable.

 

I happen to find your views on gun control both ridiculous and objectionable. However, I don't claim that my position is objective . It is a biased position based on my background and experience. Your problem is you can't see that your position isn't objective either. It is also a position based on your nature, nurture and the society in which you live. It is also a biased position and has no more validity than mine or Dave's.

Thanks, that was better said than I was saying

 

OMG. . . . . .

 

It seems The Loading has begun. . . . .

 

You haven't by any chance noticed an archer splitting a tree somewhere, have you, Nog?

 

After the Gold Rush

- Neil Young, 1970

 

So, Ratchet, after how many years of getting stoned did you give up peace love and understanding for all the bourjois redneck stuff?

[Guest Nogbad]

 

You haven't by any chance noticed an archer splitting a tree somewhere, have you, Nog?

 

 

Archer?

 

Every time you argue a point Hackman, I am amazed at how closed minded and dogmatic you can be. Not only that, you try to set yourself up as some sort of magisterial expert and fount of all wisdom. You simply come across as overbearing, peremptory and obdurate to the point of frustration.

 

You feel able to lob insults, in some cases quite personal ones, and expect other people to make allowances that you are unwilling to reciprocate.

 

Our society is not some dark maelstrom of evil conspiracies! Life in the 21st century is for the most part better than its ever been for people like us. Have some gratitude man.

 

It's only common sense that if everyone is wandering around packing a gun, lots more people will accidentally get shot.

[Guest ratchethack]

Archer?

 

Every time you argue a point Hackman, I am amazed at how closed minded and dogmatic you can be. Not only that, you try to set yourself up as some sort of magisterial expert and fount of all wisdom. You simply come across as overbearing, peremptory and obdurate to the point of frustration.

 

You feel able to lob insults, in some cases quite personal ones, and expect other people to make allowances that you are unwilling to reciprocate.

 

Our society is not some dark maelstrom of evil conspiracies! Life in the 21st century is for the most part better than its ever been for people like us. Have some gratitude man.

Well, Noggy - your frustration is palpable. That's certainly understandable. Personal attacks? I believe such are against Forum rules here. Are you saying that I've personally attacked you, Nog? I don't know how sensitive you are. Do you think you've personally attacked me, then? I haven't noticed anything that I consider a personal threat. Have I been expecting some kind of "allowances" and failing to reciprocate? I'm afraid I'm at a loss to comprehend your meaning here. I do ignore irrelevant blather much of the time, so I guess I'm missing something that you feel is important.

 

Let me assure you Nog that my aim is not to change minds that are truly closed. Such is an exercise in futility. You and Dave will quite obviously not be open to arguments that run against your preconceived points of view under any circumstances regardless of contrary evidence. But when you air unsubstantiated views on a public forum, you run the risk of opening them up for analysis and challenge. When your viewpionts are exposed for lack of foundation, them's the breaks, my friend. Such is the nature of the public forum. If the topic is stimulating to me and I believe I have something of value to contribute, I might take you on, and I reckon you don't always have to like it.

 

I don't know if you've noticed, but when I take on an argument that I'm interested in, I've usually been capable of backing up my opinion with an easily accessible outside reference, or two, or more, and up to 40 in one case. This is always open to challenge, of course, but my references tend to be from the most credible, reliable and well-established sources, as opposed to useless throw-away opinions of unqualified bloviators. In written debate, this does two things - 1. It establishes that I've at least based my opinion on something other than a dream, wishful thinking, fanciful flights of delusion from the propaganda mills, or simply empty speculation. 2. It provides an opportunity for analysis and rebuttal based on the strength - or lack thereof - of that reference. Such may be determined by the standing of that reference and/or author in its/his field, and such standards as its historical accuracy, as I've pointed out several times. Points of view are often no stronger than the references behind them. When there are no references at all, unless you're a published expert yourself, you're offering nothing more than another voice with another opinion.

 

I may be the only poster who's routinely backed up points of argument with solid references on a regular basis. I'm sorry if in your mind this translates to "overbearing, peremptory and obdurate to the point of frustration." Yes, I get irritated with inane behavior. There's been the usual backround level of this on this Forum, as there would be anywhere, and my tone often belies my irritiation. If you don't like my tone or my way of dealing with others, you don't have to participate. Of course backing up my opinion with hard evidence appears to be wisdom! Would you have me apologize for this? Yes, I'm well aware of how unusual this behavior seems to be here, and I'm sorry if this practice is annoying to you, but you'll get no apologies from me for being able to back up my points of view and calling attention to the credibility of my sources.

 

We have people here who ridicule points of view and disappear without providing one whit of argument, let alone evidence to back up their position. Such are the "drive-by" stylists. We have a few who seem to enjoy "piling on" without contributing anything at all. We also have people here who ridicule points of view and repeatedly attack both posts and references they don't like, which they quite obviously haven't either read and/or as much as looked at or considered in any way, shape or form, and then whine like spoiled little schoolgirls when I call 'em on their obviously irresponsible pratfalls. I expect this very dialog here to attract one such as this shortly, who seems to be attracted to controversy like a moth to a flame, and slightly overdue at this point. This is all harmless stuff, and I consider it self-evidently useless, throw-away behavior - but yes, I'm likely to call 'em on it when they obviously make no attempt to understand what they're responding to, whether they like it or not.

 

Now when you come up against references that you disagree with, you can attempt to discard them out of hand as invalid with nothing more than more opinion and speculation, but depending on the strength of the reference, this tends to weaken your position, rather than strengthen it. I didn't make this principle up, but I do understand it pretty well.

 

I don't much care about name-calling and insults. It's usually pretty obvious when it's baseless and/or irrelevant, and yet sometimes I believe it's called-for. Opinions on this will certainly always differ. For the most point, it carries no weight whatsoever in arguing a point, except to indicate the frustration of a person who finds themselves incapable of holding up their point of view against the evidence.

 

As far as being a paranoiac, something I seem to've been called repeatedly lately, I have no need for a defensive posture here, but let me just say this. Since I've kept myself relatively well informed for many decades via sources that may not be recognized as "mainstream media" channels, I've come to recognize the overwhelming preponderance of media propaganda that many, if not most consumers of mainstream media swallow without thinking. Now if you think this is paranoid thinking, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But I submit to you that ignorance of the multitude of ways that ignorant people are manipulated by propaganda has been, is, and will continue to be a grave danger to them. I think you'd find that history bears this out quite well. With the advent of The Information Age, ignorance of sources of information and the unpopularity of analytical thinking is indeed a liability. If awareness of this makes me a paranoiac in your view, I may ignore the label, but I will usually willingly set myself apart from the mainstream.

 

I'm not running for public office here, Nog. Nor am I selling anything. So I'm not much concerned if you don't like my points of view - sorry. You don't have to respond to, or even read my posts - and vice-versa. I'm sorry you've been so unhappy in this thread my friend, but I've not failed to notice that your abandonment of the argument altogether and sudden focus and attention on my behavior here came only after I pointed out that you weren't able to match the strength of my backup reference. I only mentioned it as a reminder because you seemed to've entirely ignored this fact. I don't think I've been out of bounds. If you want to call "foul", I wish you'd be a little more specific.

 

It's only common sense that if everyone is wandering around packing a gun, lots more people will accidentally get shot.

The real-world evidence to the contrary (of which there is an abundance, and a great deal of clarity, whether you're aware of it or not) would seem counter-intuitive to many. I've studied it in depth for decades. Its clear to me that you haven't studied it much, if any at all. If you're sincerely interested, I've repeatedly suggested the leading resource on the topic. In the International debate on gun control, it's universally acknowledged as the leading scientific resource and its available on Amazon.com, as well as from any good bookseller. If y'er not sincerely interested in educating yourself on the topic, why bother arguing the point?

[Guest Nogbad]

I thought you might have preferred investigating the longest running radio drama in the world to constructing yet another right wing diatribe intended to convert the unreachable.

 

Furthermore, you conveniently sidestepped the issue of armed societies in Africa. Last time I looked the murder rate in Mogadishu was a tad higher than that in gun control obsessed London, Paris, Berlin or anywhere else in the western "control zone". I think you will also find the part of society that IS regulary armed, i.e. the illegal economy based on sex 'n drugs, suffers a fairly high attrition rate from the said firearms. Fortunately the gangs involved are more interested in shooting at each other than at the general public, so I suppose you could argue that guns actually reduce the number of criminals in circulation.

 

I have in deference to you read some of the plethora of internet references on the matter, and have to accept that the argument is not clear cut for me. Yes, I can see that an armed citizenry may well deter an amount of crime. I can also see that gun control would be impossible in a country like the US. US citizens would simply not accept that the law abiding should give up their guns, knowing that the criminal fraternity will not. You have to sympathise with that.

 

In the UK people were not regularly armed, certainly in the last 50 years, and even policemen do not carry guns as a matter of course. However, the routine arming of certain police is becoming more common in the face of terrorism and gang violence involving arms.

 

I think in fact that imposing gun control in America would have the effect of increasing crime as there is a significant deterrent effect. However, if you relaxed controls in a country like the UK, crime might rise in that criminals would be more likely to use a weapon, and the populus would not have the collective experience and skill to take advantage of owning a gun themselves.

 

I personally have enjoyed using shotguns for clay shooting, and have done some target shooting as well. However, I would never think of owning a gun for "personal protection" firstly because I doubt I could pull the trigger faced with another person, and there is always the possibility of accidents where children are concerned.

 

You cannot really argue against the assertion that the one area where more guns really does equal more danger is when madmen are involved. In the US, murder by madmen with firearms is relatively common compared with countries where firearms are a lot more difficult to own. However, I accept you will have to live with what you have got over there and accept a certain level of deaths from this cause.

 

Why is the gun lobby so extreme in the states? Surely any sane man or woman must support the Brady Centre's campaign against illegal gun sales, and the sale to the general public of military weapons with no sporting or self-defence purpose? Surely even you Ratchet must see that with freedom comes responsibility, and any responsible person would not want a military firearm.

[dhansen]

Surely any sane man or woman must support the Brady Centre's campaign against illegal gun sales, and the sale to the general public of military weapons with no sporting or self-defence purpose? Surely even you Ratchet must see that with freedom comes responsibility, and any responsible person would not want a military firearm.

 

I don't know Nog. I consider myself a responsible citizen of the USA and I don't see any problem owning military or military style small arms. I think there are many of us in this country who stop short of the stand that Ratchet takes but still argue that anyone sane and honest should be able to own any kind of firearm they choose. (Actually I think thats all Ratchet is saying anyway when you cut out all the hype).

 

Where do you draw the line? A single shot .22 target rifle can kill you just as dead as an AK-47, M16 or Browning Automatic Rifle. In fact, I'd almost fear the well trained and practiced shooter with a .22 more than some yahoo wildly firing the AK or some other high powered military weapon!

 

I grew up on a farm in the country where we always considered our rifles, shotguns and even handguns to be tools and developed an interest in them that isn't much different from my interest in motorcycles. It hurts me to see the horrific way in which guns are misused in our society and I do argee we need to do more to control the criminal use of firearms. But, I'm not ready, as a law abiding citizen, to give any of mine up.

 

Dennis in Maine.