PDA

View Full Version : Media Bias/Jumping to Conclusions


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


lyam
03-14-2001, 11:55 AM
Well, we all know that the media has a tough job attempting to remain unbiased while reporting as much of the truth as is possible using the written word, but I read something in the newest Time disturbed me.

In yet another article investigating violence in schools the case of Elizabeth Catherine Bush (an eighth grader who shot a classmate) is detailed in a sidebar. Three paragraphs in, this text is read: "She idolized pacifists like [Martin Luther] King but studied martial arts and had once practiced her shot at the firing range with her father." (italics mine)

As if studying martial arts was contrary to 'studying' peace. Perhaps I'm over-reacting. Granted, this line is taken somewhat out of context, but does anyone else get the same impression from reading this line?

Erik
03-14-2001, 12:15 PM
lyam wrote:
In yet another article investigating violence in schools the case of Elizabeth Catherine Bush (an eighth grader who shot a classmate) is detailed in a sidebar. Three paragraphs in, this text is read: "She idolized pacifists like [Martin Luther] King but studied martial arts and had once practiced her shot at the firing range with her father." (italics mine)


Not really responding to your question but it really surprises me to see a young girl do this. That is very abnormal to the best of my understanding.

mj
03-14-2001, 12:27 PM
Marial arts are done (primarily) by martial people, army, police etc. Of course the media sees them as violent because, normally speaking, they are. So anyone who does them is assumed to be violent. It's just another media label... left/right pro/anti whatever. What should concern you more (I take it you're from the USA) is the shocking gun culture that you allow your children to be part of from a young age, that is accepted as a 'good thing'. Perhaps they wouldn't shoot each other so much if you took away the easy availability of guns for them. Of course, that's just my opinion.

NYFE Man
03-14-2001, 12:40 PM
mj wrote:
What should concern you more (I take it you're from the USA) is the shocking gun culture that you allow your children to be part of from a young age, that is accepted as a 'good thing'. Perhaps they wouldn't shoot each other so much if you took away the easy availability of guns for them. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Yeah? How else they gonna open my beers?

I would blame absentee and apathetic parenting far more quickly than a "shocking gun culture". I think that parents who are present and active in their child's life are going to do far more to keep that child from acts like these than a child left alone.

Perhaps without the guns, the shootings would be less, but what form would the same desperation manifest itself in? I am actually a proponant of gun control, but I don't think that attacking the weapon in this case solves the problem.

THAT'S what concerns me more.

mj
03-14-2001, 01:01 PM
Wasn't the dad taking her to the shooting range?
'Perhaps without guns, the shootings would be less'. ? What an interesting thing to say.

mike brown
03-14-2001, 01:33 PM
I was taught to shoot at early age (7) and I've never taken a human life. I had a strong mother and father who taught me respect for life and to obey them. They never allowed me to take a weapon out of the house without their permission.

In spite of the fact that I was initiated into our "shocking gun culture" at an early age it did not turn me into a sociopath. In fact, I really hate injuring people, and that's why I study Aikido.

lyam
03-14-2001, 01:35 PM
I thought about taking out that bit about guns from the quote, but eventually decided that it too was relevant.

mj opined:What should concern you more (I take it you're from the USA) is the shocking gun culture that you allow your children to be part of from a young age, that is accepted as a 'good thing'. Perhaps they wouldn't shoot each other so much if you [me? ;)] took away the easy availability of guns for them. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Well, in response to that can o' worms I unintentionally opened, I can only say that removing guns is not the solution nor is it a valid stop-gap measure.

I just wondered if martial arts were unjustly, though perhaps, unintentionally maligned.

mike brown
03-14-2001, 01:55 PM
I think that the martial arts were maligned intentionally in this case, Sean, or they wouldn't have mentioned her studies. Unfortunately, martial arts films and events have created a brutal image for the arts in many cases.

I can't imagine the motive for doing so, however. I'd sure hate for Aikido to become politically incorrect. I'd hate to violate social convention! TEE HEE.

NYFE Man
03-14-2001, 02:01 PM
mj wrote:
Wasn't the dad taking her to the shooting range?
'Perhaps without guns, the shootings would be less'. ? What an interesting thing to say.

Yes he was. I went to the range with my father at Boy Scout Camp. Never shot a living creature, and certainly never had a desire to take out my local school bully with a bullet.

Now that the hot button media issue is behind us, how about this: How often did dad (or mom) ask her how things are going at school? Did they talk to her teachers about her attitude and progress? Did they take time to make her feel loved and worthwhile? You didn't mention that the media also reported that she was having "family problems" -- is that of less consequence because it's not about guns?

My point is: Does blaming guns address the REAL problem behind the symptom? When I was in high school (late '80s), the big problem was suicide -- there were knives and guns in schools, but none of these mass shootings. Was it because guns were significanlty less available? I don't believe so. But I'll bet that the number of two parent families and the amount of hours that parents spend with their kids has gone down since then.

All I am saying is blaming guns does not SOLVE the problem.

Yes, without the guns the shootings might be less -- would you be happier with stabbings?

mj
03-14-2001, 02:13 PM
'Without the guns the shootings might be less' :eek:

Are we on the same planet?
Of course all of you, hopefully, are normal, sane people. ;) The trouble with your culture is that EVERYONE is allowed a gun, or 20 of them. I'm going to see your culture as what you allow the lunatics to do, aren't I. Would you give Jim23 a gun? (Only joking) Only idiots have guns. Only really, really stupid idiots will let their kids play with guns. No disrespect, but.. come back to earth please.

cbrf4zr2
03-14-2001, 02:34 PM
MJ,

Do not criticize those of us that have guns, or legal access to guns. I personally own 2, my parents own several, and both sets of grandparents owned many. In my extending family, 95% of the men hunt. In our family, no one has ever brandished a weapon in a reckless manner and in the, literally, thousands of combined hunting trips my extended family has taken, no one has ever been hurt. Unless you count the time it was cold and one of my uncle's caught his willy in his zipper. The point is, it's not the guns. A gun doesn't miraculously come to life, unlock its case, open the closet door and find someone to shoot. As NYFE said, the real problem is the lack of two parent families, and I add in the divorce rate, the violence on TV, and the lack of suitable punishment we have in this country. However gun control is not the answer. Idiot control is the answer. Let some social cleansing go on, and remove the violent (and uncaring/unconcerned parent) types from our society, permanently. Personally like the way Nicaragua handles things (or at least used to) like drunk driving. First offense, jail time and suspened license. Second time, death.

Oh, that wasn't very aiki-like was it?

But that's just me. People are the problem not the martial arts, knives, guns, cars, drugs, etc...

cbrf4zr2
03-14-2001, 02:49 PM
And why is it that you think only idiots own guns? Maybe only idiots study judo for 20 years, maybe only idiots study aikido. Maybe only idiots drive cars, or ride motorcycles, or own a computer, or eat food. Why eat? We should all be able to harness our ki and allow it to provide the energy to sustain life, and enable ourselves to live forever, and those of us that can't...well, they are idiots. Maybe only idiots live in Scotland, or Germany, or Florida (uh ok bad example with the voting incident - lol), or here in Michigan where I am. I'd like to know what your thinking is behind why, as you seemed to have blanket covered, anyone who owns a gun is an idiot? Because you don't like them? Well more people are killed with cars than guns, so maybe only idiots own cars. If I'm not mistaken, and I may be, more people die of drowning each year than being shot with guns, so maybe being around water makes you an idiot. The point it, you lost all credibility, with me at least (and I'm sure some others) when you categorized every single gun owner into being idiots. I think that categorizing makes someone an idiot, or at the very least - ignorant.

Sorry, but I had to rant.

Magma
03-14-2001, 02:53 PM
The trouble that I see with media classification of the martial arts is that they don't really take the time to get to know the art themselves, or the people sincerely training. Like little children they are distracted by bright, shiny things and in the MA world those things are the egotistical hard-asses who are ready to go to blows at any time to resolidify their position as the dominant thing walking the streets.

Of course, the sad thing is that this same sort of judgment-before-knowledge (there has got to be a nice latin or french phrase for that, doesn't there?) is also the basis for a lot of the arguments against guns. "What?! Someone was shot? Let's ban guns!" Easy. Case closed. There is no, "Oh, she was coming home every night to an empty house? Her parents were emotionally vacant? Going to the gun range was the only thing she ever did with her father, so this must have been her ill-advised way of trying to reach out..."

Each case is different, and case by case, there are more civilized, polite gun owners than these bright, shiny stories we hear about violence. Don't get distracted. The truth of it is that if that girl had never gotten out of bed that morning this tragedy would never have happened. So, really, we shouldn't let young girls out of their parents house until they are of child-bearing age and properly married. Is that shiny enough that I could get on the news?

NYFE Man
03-14-2001, 02:56 PM
mj wrote:
'Without the guns the shootings might be less' :eek:

Are we on the same planet?
Of course all of you, hopefully, are normal, sane people. ;) The trouble with your culture is that EVERYONE is allowed a gun, or 20 of them. I'm going to see your culture as what you allow the lunatics to do, aren't I. Would you give Jim23 a gun? (Only joking) Only idiots have guns. Only really, really stupid idiots will let their kids play with guns. No disrespect, but.. come back to earth please.

Why would I ever take comments like "Are we on the same planet" and "come back to earth" as disrespect? :)

And no-one in Scotland (where I take it you are from) owns a gun? There are no hunters, sport shooters, collectors, criminals? And no-one has been killed needlessly, senselessly by a gun there?

Just F.Y.I., not everyone in "our culture" is allowed a gun. 1 or 20. There are laws. They are broken, yes, and criminals and children get guns that they should not have and this is NOT RIGHT. But it is also not the NORM. I know few people who own handguns (outside of the police or related fields). Some ARE idiots, most of them are VERY RESPONSIBLE.

Yes "Only really, really stupid idiots will let their kids play with guns" -- I agree with that 100%! But there is a difference between playing and learning to use a weapon properly. There is a culture of hunting in our country (as there is in yours). Do parents wait until their child is 16, 18, 21 before handing them a deadly weapon and letting them join in? Or do they train them properly from an early age to respect and properly use this dangerous tool. (Personally, I know I was a lot more ready to listen to and respect my elders at 12 than I was at 16.)

I think we are firmly in the area of "agree to disagree" here -- but be careful of painting in such broad strokes. Too often your message becomes impossible to see. ;)

BC
03-14-2001, 03:03 PM
mj wrote:
What should concern you more (I take it you're from the USA) is the shocking gun culture that you allow your children to be part of from a young age, that is accepted as a 'good thing'.

and

The trouble with your culture is that EVERYONE is allowed a gun, or 20 of them. I'm going to see your culture as what you allow the lunatics to do, aren't I.


mj:

I believe you are unfairly categorizing all citizens of the USA as allowing their children to be part of a "shocking gun culture," and frankly I take offense at it. Would it be fair for me to say that everyone in Scotland is a bunch of whiskey swilling, kilt-wearing folk who speak a back country brogue and do nothing but sit around all day eating haggis and breaking wind into their bagpipes? Probably not. I urge you to choose your words more carefully unless your intention is to incense people. If that is the case, then you have succeeded.

By the way, I don't think gun violence exists only in the USA. Might I remind you of the Dunblane Massacre on March 13, 1996, in which a lunatic named Thomas Hamilton shot and murdered 16 innocent schoolchildren and their teacher in Dunblane, SCOTLAND.

NYFE Man
03-14-2001, 03:06 PM
Magma wrote:
The trouble that I see with media classification of the martial arts is that they don't really take the time to get to know the art themselves, or the people sincerely training. Like little children they are distracted by bright, shiny things and in the MA world those things are the egotistical hard-asses who are ready to go to blows at any time to resolidify their position as the dominant thing walking the streets.

Amen! Which sells more papers:

Little girl felt isolated at school and had family problems. As a way to try to reclaim her power she took the most powerful item in her world and used it to show that she is not to be ignored or bullied.
or
Little girl taught to shoot by father, also trained in "Eastern" martial arts, terrorizes schoolmates in random shooting incident

I'm not saying either was printed anywhere in the media -- I'm just asking, which is closer to what you think you'd see in the media?

jxa127
03-14-2001, 03:07 PM
MJ said:

Are we on the same planet?
Of course all of you, hopefully, are normal, sane people. The trouble with your culture is that EVERYONE is allowed a gun, or 20 of them. I'm going to see your culture as what you allow the lunatics to do, aren't I. Would you give Jim23 a gun? (Only joking) Only idiots have guns. Only really, really stupid idiots will let their kids play with guns. No disrespect, but.. come back to earth please.

The disrespect may not have been intended, but that was one of the most disrespectful posts I've seen on this board in a long time. I'll not argue with you, but I'd like to point out that your absolutist, closed-minded attitude has an eerie resonance with the similarly closed-minded rhetoric of the gun nuts you are attacking.

Neither stance is going to help resolve the conflict surrounding guns and gun violence.

-Drew Ames

TheProdigy
03-14-2001, 03:16 PM
Hey, I have to agree. Guns aren't the problem; people are. But really, think about the logistics involved here. There's no quick fix, or even a fix in several years that will change the way people think and raise there kids. Some kids dont have the luxury of being raised under close supervision or a good neighborhood. Some have great parents, but awful surroundings.

So then you look at what causes the majority of the homicides and guns seem to be high up on the list. For instance, I just heard of a shooting (not sure if its the same one or not...) where a kid shot and killed 2 and seriously injured 16 others. Do you really think this kid would've done as much damage with a knife or a pencil as a weapon? Could've gotten 1 or 2 yea, but then he's taken down and disarmed. Guns kill more people quicker, and thanks to their ease of use they are a common choice of weapon for murder.

By the way, I too was raised and taught how to shoot at a young age, great parents, decent environment, luck, etc. Not all youngsters have that luxury. Why allow anyone to be killed by someone who ultimately chooses to become a killer?

-Jase

P.S. Now that the real topic has been strayed from.. I wanna say that I don't think any serious damage has been done to martial arts because of that letter. The writer has been influenced as well. Perhaps the fighting spirit captured in movies gives it a negative spin, I'm not sure. The movies could easily benefit the arts and the people. But, it sounded rather casually thrown in... a play on the words makes it go that way. I'm sure people could careless about that aspect when compared to the actual incident, and the shooting range seems like a closer link that people would take. (The way this conversation has gone speaks for itself, I would think...)

lt-rentaroo
03-14-2001, 03:19 PM
Hello,

I usually stay out of this type of post, but I must respond. I hate to use an old cliche' but, guns don't kill people, people kill people. That little girl had a lot of problems, going to the shooting range with her father was not one of them (perhaps her father was hoping she would become an Olympic competitor). The main problem was the lack of parental involvement in her everyday life. As a society, we are too quick to place the blame on an inanimate object (the gun) instead of looking more deeply at the problem.

NYFE Man
03-14-2001, 03:27 PM
TheProdigy wrote:
So then you look at what causes the majority of the homicides and guns seem to be high up on the list. For instance, I just heard of a shooting (not sure if its the same one or not...) where a kid shot and killed 2 and seriously injured 16 others. Do you really think this kid would've done as much damage with a knife or a pencil as a weapon? Could've gotten 1 or 2 yea, but then he's taken down and disarmed. Guns kill more people quicker, and thanks to their ease of use they are a common choice of weapon for murder.

I agree, but then, it's not too hard to make pipe bombs (indeed, though not used yet, they've shown up in the arsenals of some of these kids and in the pre-emptive arrests of some others in the news). These school shootings look to be grand gestures, often not specifically aiming at the people who caused them grief, but randomly shooting. If the guns are removed, kids have great imaginations, what form will the "grand gesture" take?

I said earlier, I believe in strong gun control -- but without dealing with the real problem (if it needs to take 100 years) we are only pushing these kids from one choice to another.

Magma
03-14-2001, 03:47 PM
TheProdigy wrote:
Guns aren't the problem; people are.
...
So then you look at what causes the majority of the homicides and guns seem to be high up on the list.

Wow, you can really see how the anti-gun rhetoric seeps insidiously into our lexicon. I'm suprised to find these two statements in the same post. I think that we are expected to just simply nod at any statement that targets the big bad evil guns. Just stop thinking and nod. And the more we nod, the more statements like the second one from the excerpt above soaks into our culture.

We look for things to blame because it makes us feel better. It's easier to blame the gun - the thing - than to try to understand what happened with the person, especially if that person is yourself. I would say that what causes the most homicides is one person lacking a high respect for life. Now answer why the person doesn't respect life, and you may be on to solving the problem. What many people forget is that a great percentage of the time, learning to use a gun goes hand in hand with learning to respect life.

hmmm. So maybe martial arts was dealt a double low blow by the article... because this respect should have been learned there, too. The girl should have been empowered as a person of worth who didn't need to resort to the violence to get attention. So not only were the martial arts smeared as violent, but what message did the article send to those who thought that martial arts might help another person learn peace and respect. Perhaps that second criticism is valid, though, because why didn't she learn this in her studies? I guess we really don't know how frequent or hard she trained, though...

andrew
03-14-2001, 04:23 PM
NYFE Man wrote:
[QUOTE]mj wrote:
[B]Perhaps without the guns, the shootings would be less, but what form would the same desperation manifest itself in

Hmmn, well not a row of corpses in a classroom anyhow.
It's a pretty easy question to find an answer to. Look at a country that has gun control.
andrew

andrew
03-14-2001, 04:28 PM
NYFE Man wrote:
Yes, without the guns the shootings might be less -- would you be happier with stabbings?

Hell yeah. If a frustrated pair of kids can stab a dozen people without being stopped, who am I to stop them?

Hey, I drink and drive all the time, but I've never hit anybody. If drinking and driving causes others to plough into innocent victims and kill them, it's not my problem, is it? Their parents probably should have done something so they'd drink and drive responsibly, shouldn't they? Hell yeah.

andrew

andrew
03-14-2001, 04:36 PM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
Let some social cleansing go on, and remove the violent (and uncaring/unconcerned parent) types from our society, permanently


Yes. Why don't you do that. I'll make you a nice big batch of poison gas and we'll get to work on rounding them up.

Why are you people so paranoid about gun control? We've gun control here and I know several people with rifles or hunting guns. Do you think you're the only person who'll believe you're responsible, because that's what it sounds like.

andrew

NYFE Man
03-14-2001, 04:43 PM
andrew wrote:
NYFE Man wrote:
[QUOTE]mj wrote:
Perhaps without the guns, the shootings would be less, but what form would the same desperation manifest itself in

Hmmn, well not a row of corpses in a classroom anyhow.
It's a pretty easy question to find an answer to. Look at a country that has gun control.
andrew

What if they choose to use a pipe bomb instead? Or poison? No rows of corpses there? Humans are really good at figuring out how to kill. If the desire is there, the means can be found. I can look at many countries who have gun control... I think it was pointed out re: Scotland in particular, no country (that I can think of) is free of the stain of senseless violence.

andrew also wrote:
Hell yeah. If a frustrated pair of kids can stab a dozen people without being stopped, who am I to stop them?

Hey, I drink and drive all the time, but I've never hit anybody. If drinking and driving causes others to plough into innocent victims and kill them, it's not my problem, is it? Their parents probably should have done something so they'd drink and drive responsibly, shouldn't they? Hell yeah.

And if you shoot into a crowd of kids and miss, in your eyes I guess you're just as innocent :)

andrew
03-14-2001, 04:46 PM
BC wrote:
By the way, I don't think gun violence exists only in the USA. Might I remind you of the Dunblane Massacre on March 13, 1996, in which a lunatic named Thomas Hamilton shot and murdered 16 innocent schoolchildren and their teacher in Dunblane, SCOTLAND.


Of course. A metally disturbed adult managed to get access to a gun. Tragic. What's even more tragic is that you already seem to have reached the desensitisation where a number of children doing the same isn't any more shocking. How do kids who can't buy beer get guns?
Responsible gun ownership would mean being willing to make some ownership sacrafices if it'd help prevent these tragedies. The loudest response that seems to come from some people is "no gun restiction, cos I didn't shoot anybody myself." And of course they didn't, but that's never going to be the point.

andrew

andrew
03-14-2001, 04:50 PM
NYFE Man wrote:

And if you shoot into a crowd of kids and miss, in your eyes I guess you're just as innocent :)

Well, I don't have a gun.

Pardon me, "life and death" type issues get me pretty p*ssed off. For a second there I actually thought you'd missed the sarcastic tone. Whoops. [Then I saw the :)]

BC
03-14-2001, 04:57 PM
andrew wrote:
BC wrote:
By the way, I don't think gun violence exists only in the USA. Might I remind you of the Dunblane Massacre on March 13, 1996, in which a lunatic named Thomas Hamilton shot and murdered 16 innocent schoolchildren and their teacher in Dunblane, SCOTLAND.


Of course. A metally disturbed adult managed to get access to a gun. Tragic. What's even more tragic is that you already seem to have reached the desensitisation where a number of children doing the same isn't any more shocking. How do kids who can't buy beer get guns?
Responsible gun ownership would mean being willing to make some ownership sacrafices if it'd help prevent these tragedies. The loudest response that seems to come from some people is "no gun restiction, cos I didn't shoot anybody myself." And of course they didn't, but that's never going to be the point.

andrew

Andrew:

Please show me where in that statement that I have reached such "desensitisation!" I suggest you re-read my whole post and what I was responding to before you jump all over my case.

NYFE Man
03-14-2001, 05:03 PM
andrew wrote:
NYFE Man wrote:

And if you shoot into a crowd of kids and miss, in your eyes I guess you're just as innocent :)

Well, I don't have a gun.

Pardon me, "life and death" type issues get me pretty p*ssed off. For a second there I actually thought you'd missed the sarcastic tone. Whoops. [Then I saw the :)]



Andrew:

I mentioned earlier in this post -- I am PRO gun control. I just think that it is naive to think that removing the implement will remove the threat. One of my favorite teachers has a great expression in knife class: He stands with the knife in hand and asks

"Where is the weapon?"

Invariably the newbies say/point to the knife. He then drops the knife. Point being he could still kill/hurt you even without the knife. The knife is just a tool to achieve the intent. Until the intent is gone, the threat is still there.

As long as the kids that want to make these grand gestures feel that need, they will. THAT'S the threat -- the gun is just the tool.

(The off switch calls, I have to go teach people to be violent for a film... Think this has given me some thought for the night? But it's unarmed, so it's OK ;))

andrew
03-14-2001, 05:03 PM
NYFE Man wrote:

What if they choose to use a pipe bomb instead? Or poison? No rows of corpses there? Humans are really good at figuring out how to kill. If the desire is there, the means can be found. I can look at many countries who have gun control... I think it was pointed out re: Scotland in particular, no country (that I can think of) is free of the stain of senseless violence.


Yeah, but some means are easier than others. Yes, I know there's more than access to guns involved, but that final step is the most alarming one. There's always been pissed off kids.

I think the issue here is more about schoolchildren, and not even so much why they do it as how they can get an opportunity to do it. Why they'd want to is an issue for pyschaitrists, how they get the opportunity is an issue for the rest of society. And I'm not going to debate this anymore.

andrew

andrew
03-14-2001, 05:06 PM
BC wrote:
Please show me where in that statement that I have reached such "desensitisation!"


In the last paragraph, the bit where you didn't seem to see a deranged adult with a gun as any different than an upset child with a gun...

mj
03-14-2001, 05:06 PM
Well, I'm sorry if I offended you. And as for Dunblane, Scottish people don't talk about that much, of the F****** pr*** that committed the atrocity. But, in case you missed it, we banned ALL guns in the country after THAT! 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Bulls***! You really are disgraceful! Guns are an industry to sell guns. Never mind aiki. What the hell are you people doing defending guns! You just confirm what I think. Of course 90-99% of people aren't loonies. But if you give everyone guns, you give every loony a gun. And taking guns off of people AFTER they commit a crime isn't much help to the dead people....
No disrespect here, but can I ask the question... why are you so quick to attack me and not the gun culture of the USA/NRA?

mj
03-14-2001, 05:10 PM
BC please don't mention Dunblane. It's not the Alamo, it hurt the Scots people, including me, to the core. Maybe you're used to it, we never will be, and don't intend to be. Absolute respect to people who post here on aiki, including you.

Nick
03-14-2001, 05:59 PM
I live in America (and in the south, no less!) and have never fired a bullet shooting gun (my friend and I shot cans with his BB gun in his backyard)-- I've never even held an actual gun, however compared to most 14 year olds, I'm rather proficient with a sword. In ancient Japan katana were easy to get... cheap ones could be acquired if you knew the right people, etc etc. The samurai were trained from a young age (5 years of age, I believe) on how to brandish them as to take another human's life. The samurai could of course have used this, with the law of kirisute gomen, "killing and walking away" where they could kill a peasent who looked at their topknot funny. Some outrages did occur, and while these samurai did not go to jail, many were subject to ridicule by their peers. I realize that ancient japan and modern day america are about as similar as a squirrel and a cinder block, but bear with me. I own bokken, jo, aluminum iaito, bo staff, shinai, etc etc. If I truly desired, I could use my tantowaza training to learn how to use a knife so that it couldn't be defended against easily, and then start a mad stabbing in a crowded hallway. I could fill my gym bag with even kitchen knives, and throw them at people at will. However, I could not dream of such a thing, and 90% of my schoolmates could not either. I'd say of the remaining 10%, about half have parents who own guns. Half of that have parents are not home or neglect them, and half of those have access to a gun. And perhaps 10% of that last group would actually think of that, which is why violence is not all that common (until recently). I agree that guns are a bit too rampant in the U.S. and that they are too often used for killing, rather than protecting life. Though few Americans would know the terms, those with guns must everyday decide-- shall I be katsujinteppo or satsujinteppo... and though my Japanese is known to be wrong, I believe that I've fashioned the old Yagyu saying into now saying the gun that saves live or the gun that takes life. If any speakers know my rendition to be incorrect, please correct me.

Many times I've heard on this forum and many others, "It's not the martial art, it's the martial artist." I'd like to change that phrase also: "It's not the gun, it's the one holding the gun."

Cheers,

Nick

mj
03-14-2001, 06:04 PM
Cool Nick, but it's the gun culture isn't it? It's abhorrent to us here. No guns, no shooting...

Nick
03-14-2001, 06:12 PM
Once a country has something, making it illegal won't get rid of it. Look at marijuana in this country. Since it was banned, the use has shot up exponentially... marijuana has good use medicinally, but not for smoking... same with guns, good for defense and hunting, bad for needless killing...

Nick

mj
03-14-2001, 06:30 PM
Sorry Nick, we seem to be talking to each other tonight :D Guns are bad, drugs have uses, whatever. Thanks for the input. More americans kill each other with guns than anyone in the world. This is not a criticism of you, or any other citizen. Guns only kill. We got rid of them, you can't. Not your fault, on a personal level. My criticism isn't of you on a personal level. It's your culture. Really, I have kids, I love them, I care for people who are not mine. See what I mean...

Nick
03-14-2001, 06:52 PM
Of course, and no offense intended or taken. It's certainly not comforting to have the statistics that the U.S. does, and I have more of a beef with the American government than you do ;). I too cannot see why one needs an AK-47 for defending your home... I have always preferred the romance of the sword to the gun, but my views in modern america seem to be archaic... I think if all the guns and missiles in the world were destroyed, the world would have been done a great service. Would there still be killing? Of course. But until the day every person alive decides to give up their precious firearms, we're stuck with them and the message that we're not ALL crazy rednecks shooting squirrels and drinking beer...

Well, most of us anyways ;)

Nick

mj
03-14-2001, 07:08 PM
Thanks Nick. There isn't really any more to say. I'll see you next time. No offense was meant to anyone in this post.

Jim23
03-14-2001, 07:19 PM
I'd like to start by saying: http://www.seikeikan.com/image/kungfu.gif

I don't know why so many peaceful aikidoka are attacking mj's views. He's right on this one in my opinion.

The U.S. is way out in front when it comes to gun related crimes/murders! If I'm not mistaken it's about 5 times that of the next higest industrialized country (Switzerland I think).

I also remember reading that firearms in the good old US of A accounted for almost 90% of children's deaths by firearms WORLDWIDE.

The U.S in the gun capital of the world!

And mj, I don't own a gun. Never have, never will. I'll stick to randori - much safer!

Jim23

Nick
03-14-2001, 08:09 PM
I'd say we've bled this topic as much as we're going to bleed-- to sum it up, whether or not you own a gun or not, be careful around them, and, let's face it, about all they're good for is killing, whether it's a burglar, deer, or classmate. We've also come to a consensus that the U.S. is extreme in its gun (mis)use. However, I'm afraid not much can be done just yet, so we'll just have to see what the future brings.

Nick

AikiBiker
03-14-2001, 08:26 PM
To reply to the origional intent of this post I would say that most people in the world just don't understand martial arts and that is where misunderstandings come from. Do your friends a favor and take them to class with you once or twice.

To respond to the gun issue I will refer you to the Declaration of Independence. The right to own firearms was included in the Bill of Rights because our founding fathers saw it as a civil right. The same as the right free speech or trial by a jury.

It was the first civil right that was denied to black people in the South under the Jim Crowe laws. The second was the right to vote. The reason the right to keep and bear arms was the first right denied to the black people was the government knew there was no way in hell they could be oppressed if they were armed.

Now if you will read the writings of the framers of the constitution you will quickly come to the understanding that in America the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or self defense. The reason we in America are allowed to own guns is so that we as a people can forcefully remove the government from power should that be required. (I hope to God it never is.)

While we may not aprove of the forms of government in Vietnam or Afghanistan, these to countries prove just what a determined armed citizenry can do with light arms.

That MJ is why so many Americans own guns.

Later

sceptoor
03-14-2001, 08:27 PM
Jim23 wrote:
I'd like to start by saying: http://www.seikeikan.com/image/kungfu.gif

I don't know why so many peaceful aikidoka are attacking mj's views. He's right on this one in my opinion.

The U.S. is way out in front when it comes to gun related crimes/murders! If I'm not mistaken it's about 5 times that of the next higest industrialized country (Switzerland I think).

I also remember reading that firearms in the good old US of A accounted for almost 90% of children's deaths by firearms WORLDWIDE.

The U.S in the gun capital of the world!

And mj, I don't own a gun. Never have, never will. I'll stick to randori - much safer!

Jim23

The U.S. is home to nearly 350 MILLION people!!! Many have guns, many don't. Personally, I don't. I don't need one.

I believe in more restricted gun laws, but I do not believe that the laws which allow gun ownership is the problem in this country. Believe it or not, there are forms to fill out, 10 day waiting requirements, criminal background checks, licenses, and so on for citizens who wish to buy guns and abidethe law. Not so with someone who wishes to murder one with it. All they have to do is know the right people and they can buy an untraceable gun without the hassles of going the "legal" route. As many mentioned above, the violence resulting from handguns is only the symptom of the many deranged and cowardice people whom represent the real problem.

mj, please do not equate "culture" with "gun ownership". The American people do not worship the gun or make their ownership of guns as the icon around which all things in America revolve. The incidents with kids killing kids is more about the lack of proper discipline and respect for other people, and the lack of quality teaching regarding the potential danger of firearms than it is about the fact that American citizens have the right to own guns. I, too, was taught at a young age how to handle a firearm, yet I have never personally owned a gun, but I do know several people who do. One day, I, the responsible law abiding citizen of America may want to become a gun owner. When and if that happens, I'd like my right to do so to still exist, not revoked because of the irresponsible, undisciplined few that decided to kill somebody. Laws are for honest people, a determined killer will still kill regardless of the weapons available.

Nick
03-14-2001, 08:52 PM
Personally, I think the 2nd amendment is kind of outdated... after all, the government has control of the great nuke... doesn't matter if you're an expert pistol shooter if you're getting bombs dropped on you by a B-52... ever since the Manhattan Project, I think that the 2nd amendment has become pretty obselete... things have changed since the revolution... a group of armed inviduals could (and did) take on a better organized army, but there aren't many Redcoats around, and we use buttons to push destructive bombs instead of musket battles. The NRA, etc say they need guns to protect themselves from the very government they get funding from...

Nick

Nick
03-14-2001, 08:54 PM
and another thing-- all those laws, etc, show that the government has ultimate control... in case of some odd revolution, they could find ways to keep us from getting guns...

Heh... don't get me started on the government... I'm young and easily angered ;)

Nick

cbrf4zr2
03-14-2001, 09:12 PM
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Jim23 - AND he helps me with a point!! LOL

"The U.S. is way out in front when it comes to gun related crimes/murders! If I'm not mistaken it's about 5 times that of the next higest industrialized country (Switzerland I think)."

Which is oddly ironic that in Switzerland EVERY HOUSEHOLD is REQUIRED to have a machine gun in the house.

So...like 100% of the people have immediate access to guns in Switzerland, yet they have 5 times less of a problem. So someone want to do the math for me and show me how it's the guns that are the problem and not the people?

So...uh....like where's the problem? In the guns? No...in the lacksadasical attitude of our penal system and parents.

Oh well, I'm some retarded mongoloid idiot. All bow to the superior wisdom of MJ because, after all, he's lived in this country (USA) his whole life and is an expert.

Oh...and Andrew, if I could have my way...I would gladly volunteer my time to cull the dredges and problem people of society. But until we get out of this age of politcal correctness, and can make people take responsibility for their action, instead of trying to place the blame elsewhere or on other people, it's only going to get worse.

Magma
03-14-2001, 10:16 PM
andrew wrote:
NYFE Man wrote:
[QUOTE]mj wrote:
Perhaps without the guns, the shootings would be less, but what form would the same desperation manifest itself in

Hmmn, well not a row of corpses in a classroom anyhow.
andrew

Wow. So shiny. Look at the shiny, shiny story. Andrew likey! Andrew likey the shiny!:D

Inflammatory arguments only cloud the issue. A gun can sit unbothered on a garage or in storage for five hundred years and not be used at all. Not kill anyone, not negotiate an escape from a bad situation. What is the gun then? A paperweight? It's only when it is used with poor judgment that it makes the headlines.

OK, now go back and read that paragraph again and replace every "gun" with "car." ...huh.

Jim23
03-14-2001, 10:27 PM
sceptoor wrote:
(Jim wrote)
I don't know why so many peaceful aikidoka are attacking mj's views. He's right on this one in my opinion.

The U.S. is way out in front when it comes to gun related crimes/murders! If I'm not mistaken it's about 5 times that of the next higest industrialized country (Switzerland I think).


It's about 5 times per capita, not based on total population. Switzerland only has about 5-6 million people.

Jim23

Jim23
03-14-2001, 10:54 PM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Jim23 - AND he helps me with a point!!
Golly gosh, it's getting hot in here. And golly gosher, your name looks really, well, um, nice in lights. Hi. ;)

xxx :cool:
Jim23

cbrf4zr2
03-14-2001, 11:41 PM
Jim

I was making that statement based on the per capita assumption. It's the only way to compare apples to apples. I still wonder how it's the guns that are the problem, if PER CAPITA Switzerland has more guns, and PER CAPITA their gun crime is 5 times lower. Because let's say 33% the households have guns in the U.S. (this number is being pulled out of my butt and it's only to show math not to be argued that "No! 32.4% do!" I'm too tired to go look up the numbers.) And since it's law in Switzerland that every household is to have a machine gun...then 100% of the households have guns? Are you stupid people following so far? Ok, then good. OK...so if it's the guns and not the people that are committing atrocities, then it should stand to reason that Switzerland should have a 3 times HIGHER gun crime rate than the U.S. But instead it has a 5 times LOWER rate. Hmmmmm...so how is it the guns? To me, what that says is that Switzerland is 15 times more (5 times 3 equals 15, boys and girls - you may have nappy time now) responsible when it comes to firearms than the USA. Again...it's not the tools, it's the people wielding them. And the lack of punishment by the system.
Do the math. Oh, and a small side note, a study was done where citizens of one county were allowed to obtain concealed weapons permits for registered handguns they had. Over the one year study - the crime rate WENT DOWN in that county. But in surrounding counties the crime rate went up. Someone care to explain how guns were bad there?

I await a logical and valid response.

cbrf4zr2
03-14-2001, 11:45 PM
Jim

Any negativity on that last post was not directed at you.

Jim23
03-14-2001, 11:51 PM
No problem. But those lights are so bright! ;)

jim23

Erik
03-15-2001, 12:03 AM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
So...uh....like where's the problem? In the guns? No...in the lacksadasical attitude of our penal system and parents.


This is meant towards a couple other posts as well.

Be careful when you extrapolate conclusions based on one fact. One specific example comes to mind. Japan which has a lower crime rate than the US, is also culturally homogenous, predisposed towards order, and doesn't have the same economic dysfunction (they have their own version) that we have. These same factors would probably apply to Switzerland as well. Hence, violent crime might be less for these reasons rather than gun ownership. This wasn't really your point but it was kind of implied.

My point, this is a complex issue and much more involved than just gun ownership or bad parenting.

On a personal note. I grew up around guns. I was given a BB gun when I was around 10 and worked my way up to bigger guns. I used to hunt small animals and mostly I was squirrel population control for my father's ranch. Interestingly, while I technically own a couple of guns, I keep them with my parents. I really have no desire to own a gun, other than just because, and side really strongly with most of the folks who are anti-gun. I would not be bothered in the least if guns went away and I've never really heard a good argument for their ownership.

mike brown
03-15-2001, 07:07 AM
Regarding the girl who shot up her school; in my experience monsters create monsters; or as Dr. Scott Peck put it," victims of evil often become evil." I'd like to know what was done to that girl and by whom to turn her into a monster. I wonder that if she had been in the right dojo if she would have been "gentled" somehow.

Interestingly enough, in Indonesia there is a mental condition known as "Amok" which involves the sufferer taking a bladed weapon into a crowd and killing until he himself is cut down. I don't know the body count but I imagine it's quite high. It may be that some of the factors operating in our public schools are similar to those in "Amok" situations in Indonesia.

And a word to Mr. Johnson; I lived in Spain for two years in the 1980's where there is a great deal of gun-control (only the police, military, and extremely wealthy may own fire-arms) and think a few observations about gun-control societies are in order.

While there are very few homocides there; armed robbery is commited on an epidemic scale. It's done with large, scary knives instead. It bears most heavily on the elderly, women, and children. Young, strapping lads are also sometimes robbed, on multiple occasions. Rape is also very common there.

Tough men who are willing to use hand weapons of their own in their defense don't have as big a problem; although armed robbers often travel in packs, so their advantage is nullified.

Here in the American West where I live, armed robbery occurs, but is not as ubiquitous as where I lived in Europe. I think it's because we have the right to use firearms to defend ourselves.

My point is that you should live in a gun-controlled society and see the ugly side of gun control before you espouse it.

Dajo251
03-15-2001, 08:24 AM
I have somthing to say about gun control and weither to blame lack of it for killing in America it is easyer to get a drivers licence than own a gun if a person were to go on a killing spree with a car than would people try to make "car control laws". I do not believe that guns are needed in civilian life but I do believe that people should have the right to own them but my point is is that a car is just as if not more deadly than a gun, one should not blame gun control or gun makers or anything to that effect.

(wow I rambled on a bit there)

NYFE Man
03-15-2001, 08:28 AM
mj wrote:
BC please don't mention Dunblane. It's not the Alamo, it hurt the Scots people, including me, to the core. Maybe you're used to it, we never will be, and don't intend to be. Absolute respect to people who post here on aiki, including you.

MJ,

I don't think anyone in the US is *used* to these horrendous acts, either, no matter where they happen. I remember that I was very shocked and saddened when I heard about Dunblane.

No-one has a corner on pain, suffering or self-righteous anger, be they Scot, American, Palestinian, Israeli or Japanese.

I don't think it serves anyone to say "my pain is more valid than your pain."

Magma
03-15-2001, 08:59 AM
Erik wrote:
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
So...uh....like where's the problem? In the guns? No...in the lacksadasical attitude of our penal system and parents.


....
Be careful when you extrapolate conclusions based on one fact. One specific example comes to mind. Japan which has a lower crime rate than the US, is also culturally homogenous, predisposed towards order, and doesn't have the same economic dysfunction (they have their own version) that we have. These same factors would probably apply to Switzerland as well.

From Travel reports on Switzerland:
The fusion of German, French and Italian ingredients has formed a robust national culture

You can't compare the homogeny of Japan to any other country because of how long the Japanese people were isolated and developed in a vacuum. No landlocked european country, however neutral, is going to achieve this same level of homogeny.

lyam
03-15-2001, 09:07 AM
This thread really exploded! And OT too!

^bump^

cbrf4zr2
03-15-2001, 09:18 AM
Had some time to go find some numbers and here's an interesting one. The Illegitimate birth rate in the USA in 97 was 32%. Not 32 out of 1000, but of 100. In Switzerland, it was 7.3% What's eerily odd, is that the US number is roughly 5 times higher than the Swiss rate. 5 times higher illegitimate birthrate, 5 times higher gun-related crime rate. Just something to think about. Again...how is it the guns?

BC
03-15-2001, 10:29 AM
Please don't misunderstand what I pointed out about other tragedies. My heart is wrenched EVERY time I hear about any tragedies such as those referred to here, and ESPECIALLY when they involve children, as I am a father myself. I have never been a proponent of gun ownership, and also believe the US' 2nd Amendment is outdated and was created in a time and place radically different from our society of today. However, as has been mentioned above, I believe the problem with gun violence, or any type of violence for that matter, is much more complex than simple gun control laws. There are many individuals and organizations which are trying to resolve this issue, with no resolution immediately in sight.

What probably does not make into the international press is that many local communities and their governments in the US are now taking matters into their own hands by implenting laws banning the purchase and ownership of any handguns or assault weapons, and requiring registration of most if not all other types of firearms. This includes the town I live in, which adopted such a law last year. Will these be effective in the future? Who knows, only time will tell. But in the meantime individuals need to accept the responsibility of helping to curb the existing and future demand for such weapons by educating and guiding todays teenagers and children to instill the moral, emotional and ethical attitudes necessary to make them positive members of society. In my opinion, such grassroots efforts are going to be the only way to effectively eliminate such terrible tragedies in the future.

By the way, even though I was once trained in the operation of a gun, I have never owned a gun nor do I have any intention of owning a gun in the future. I simply see no need for it.

Erik
03-15-2001, 11:50 AM
Magma wrote:

From Travel reports on Switzerland:
The fusion of German, French and Italian ingredients has formed a robust national culture

You can't compare the homogeny of Japan to any other country because of how long the Japanese people were isolated and developed in a vacuum. No landlocked european country, however neutral, is going to achieve this same level of homogeny.

Thanks! Makes sense! The only point I was trying to make is violent crime can be more complex than bad family planning.

Erik
03-15-2001, 12:41 PM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
Had some time to go find some numbers and here's an interesting one. The Illegitimate birth rate in the USA in 97 was 32%. Not 32 out of 1000, but of 100. In Switzerland, it was 7.3% What's eerily odd, is that the US number is roughly 5 times higher than the Swiss rate. 5 times higher illegitimate birthrate, 5 times higher gun-related crime rate. Just something to think about. Again...how is it the guns?

We're going off topic on an already off topic conversation but did you know that Switzerland is a country that doesn't practice circumcision. The US does. Higher gun-related crime rate, higher circumcision rate. Just something to think about.

Or, maybe statistics really can be made to say what you want them to.

Magma
03-15-2001, 01:50 PM
Erik wrote:
The only point I was trying to make is violent crime can be more complex than bad family planning.

Erik, I agree that violent crime has many contributing factors (in fact, I think most... how shall I say this... most not-anti-gun people realize and agree with this). But I think that when you trace all of those problematic "symptoms" back to their source, you'll find that they start with family life.

So while you may wish to skew the circumcision statistic to prove that statistics say what you want them to say, I think it's fairly obvious that circumcision is not value-formative. People do not go around subconsciously saying, "Hmm, what should I do. I'm not circumcised, so I'll choose this...." They go around making judgments based on what they learned growing up to be right and wrong. And there is no denying that a child of a stable home as a better chance to grow up to be a stable person. There is also no denying that more unstable people have come from unstable homes. So Ed's comment about the connection between illegitimate births and increasing violence is not some non-sequitor rant.

I think that he is looking for the cause of the violence, and is much more on target than your comparison to circumcision rates paints him to be.

mj
03-15-2001, 03:45 PM
??? Some people are using quotes on me that I didn't say. Not nice. I don't have self-righteous anger or any other kind, but I'm reading a lot of anger in these posts. The GUN-CULTURE in the US is a bad thing. I'm not going to pick up on any of the individual arguments (and I mean arguing in a positive sense,) but I would say sean farrell is right, his original idea has been drowned here. So can I ask these questions. Is the US culture gun orientated? Are you all brought up with the idea that guns are neutral? Does anyone realise that after Dunblane, guns were banned in this country? How many kids have to die in the US before you ban them. The man who committed the Dunblane atrocity was not mentally sick, he had a grievance with the parents of the town, even if you are all sane, would you agree that sane people are the only ones who can crack up?...

I didn't say that all people with guns were mongoloid, loonies or whatever. Guns are not cars, knives, bokken or pipe bombs. Would someone over there take a deep breath and tell me why over 30 children a day are killed in the US by guns? Without any of the sarcasm that is dripping all over this thread? Boy, I'm really sorry for even asking these questions - not even sure if there IS an answer. I also know that some people are going to take all of this the wrong way, maybe there isn't a right way. I agree with some people, don't agree with others. From Scotland, where no kids were killed in the last year with guns - we just don't UNDERSTAND why you keep having them...

mj
03-15-2001, 03:50 PM
And I'm not saying that 'we' are better than 'you', or anything like that, because I just read my post and it could read like that, too.

akiy
03-15-2001, 04:06 PM
This thread has been moved to Chit Chat section for its off-topic nature.

-- Jun

Erik
03-15-2001, 04:13 PM
Man, I can't even see the original topic anymore.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

There are some very interesting things on recent trends in regard to crime. What I think is really interesting is that in these times of sin and illegitimate children, crime has declined here in the US. Perhaps more interesting, is that it seems to follow an economic trend. This is probably far more significant than single parent families in regards to violent crime.

What is also interesting is that amongst teens, young adults and blacks the levels of violent crime are the highest. This might lend credence to the family question but it might also raise other questions.

There is also no denying that more unstable people have come from unstable homes. So Ed's comment about the connection between illegitimate births and increasing violence is not some non-sequitor rant.

I dunno, didn't the original poster mention a situation which involved a stable family? How many screw ups have you known that have seemed to come from the idealic "Leave it to Beaver" family? The 2 parent stable family is extraordinarily unique in the history of the world. Mostly because people died young for lots of different reasons. Remember, when we are talking about this ideal family, at least in the context of the US, we are really talking about post WW2. This was one of the most stable family life style situations the world has ever known and was produced because of the economic good fortune we had in not getting bombed. This was a dream time.

Today, we have instantaneous worldwide communication. We must compete with everyone and we are under constant stress because if we don't compete hard we could be out of the game. Our cities are more crowded, the population is exploding in some places, the pace of life is much, much faster, most people work harder than ever, and we face significant cultural change. The price of a home and just plain living has exploded for many of us, homogenity is a non-issue here and we are still learning to deal with it. There are huge economic issues as we deal with who gets richer and who gets left behind. This could get much worse if the economy continues downward. These issues are so much more significant than illegitimate children (whatever they are exactly) because they are what cause illegitimate children.

Do I prefer a stable family situation? Hell, yes! I think it's a very good thing. I just don't think it's the core issue.

Erik
03-15-2001, 04:21 PM
mj wrote:
Boy, I'm really sorry for even asking these questions - not even sure if there IS an answer.

Actually, I'm kinda wishing I'd stayed out as well but it's too late for me.

NYFE Man
03-15-2001, 04:35 PM
mj wrote:
??? Some people are using quotes on me that I didn't say. Not nice.
(snip)
I didn't say that all people with guns were mongoloid, loonies or whatever.

FWIW, unless someone logged on as you, you did say:

Are we on the same planet?
Of course all of you, hopefully, are normal, sane people. The trouble with your culture is that EVERYONE is allowed a gun, or 20 of them. I'm going to see your culture as what you allow the lunatics to do, aren't I. Would you give Jim23 a gun? (Only joking) Only idiots have guns. Only really, really stupid idiots will let their kids play with guns. No disrespect, but.. come back to earth please.

If the "(Only joking)" refers to "Would you give Jim23 a gun?", then to those people, not only in the US, but anywhere in the world who are RESPONSIBLE gun-owners, that quote is a slap in the face.

mj
03-15-2001, 04:44 PM
mj wrote:
Perhaps without the guns, the shootings would be less, but what form would the same desperation manifest itself in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was from you wasn't it nyfe man?
I didn't say that, but you quoted me saying it? Right?

mj
03-15-2001, 04:52 PM
Sorry nyfe man, I think maybe someone else quoted you as saying I said it

mj
03-15-2001, 04:54 PM
Yup, that's what happened. But I was still misquoted.

NYFE Man
03-15-2001, 04:55 PM
mj wrote:
So can I ask these questions. Is the US culture gun orientated?

I do not believe so, no. I believe that there IS too much violence in our media, videogames, music, etc. I know that guns are a PART of the cultures of some peoples in our country. But overall? No.

Are you all brought up with the idea that guns are neutral?

I'm sure some are. I'm sure some think they're positive and some think they're negative. We are a country of 283.8 million individuals, there will be some variation.

Does anyone realise that after Dunblane, guns were banned in this country?

No I did not. Is that just handguns, or rifles and shotguns as well? How has this affected the hunters in your country? (Seriously, this is one of the BIG reasons that gun control would run into serious opposition in the US -- they're a powerful lobby.)

mj
03-15-2001, 04:56 PM
:D I suppose that comes under the original thread heading of ...jumping to conclusions!

mj
03-15-2001, 05:09 PM
So as not to confuse, my last four posts before this should be read as one :confused:

NYFE Man, Special police units have guns, armed response to weapons stuff. Farmers have limited access to shotguns, I think. ??I think??
The point I was making was only this, after it happened, we made them illegal. Anyone in Scotland would inform on you if you had a gun. (Hopefully!) It was a CULTURE change, brought on by the what happened. When I was a kid I would have loved a gun, I had an air-rifle. (BB gun?) But it's just not ??? cool here anymore. You live in a much bigger place. NY has more people than Scotland, never mind US. But hunting isn't really a big industry in the developed world anymore, it's just sport isn't it?

Jim23
03-15-2001, 05:17 PM
This thread is getting tangled.

"Aikidokas Against Randori but for Guns": AARG! AARG!!

Anyone know a good defence against a gun attack, for those of us who can't dodge bullets (yet).

AARG!! Mark, doesn't that sound a little Scottish?

Jim23

Magma
03-15-2001, 05:26 PM
Just a thought...

what would the anti-gun portion of this forum think of a ballistic-do martial art? I mean, you don't have to go far to see the comparisons between target shooting and other martial arts. Centering yourself, controlling your emotions, filtering out all of the stimuli of your environment, weight distribution, relaxation, etc. I could go on. There is almost a direct corollary to the archery art (sorry, don't know the name of that one).

Granted this "art" would travel a road directly opposite of other MA's: those that start as an art and are decayed by sport. Ballistic-do (and it's historical ancestors muzzle-do and muzzle-jutsu) would go from being sport shooting to being a new MA. Any thoughts?

mj
03-15-2001, 05:27 PM
:) Jim23 Thanks for bringing some sanity back into my life! And after all the nasty things people said about you... lol

I'm not coming to this thread anymore people, so argue away. I've got my life to enjoy.
Who said this? 'The purpose of life is suffering. The cause of suffering is desire.'

Magma
03-15-2001, 05:37 PM
And what about this:

I make the blanket statement that martial arts are to blame for all of the hand to hand violence in our world (since even a poor haymaker is martial, just evidence of poor art). Convince the media (who only need to be shown the shiny, shiny stories of people left to die, left in coma's, etc.) that we need to do something about this "martial culture." We need to ban all practice of martial arts. That means that everyone posting on this forum and training at their home dojo would have to turn in all of their rank and gi, belt, certificates, and manuals. There could be no more training, and if you were found to be training underground you would be subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

Would you stand for that? It doesn't matter if you agree with the law; the law has been made and passed by your elected officials. Turn in your gi, son, and don't try none of that kerotty eye-of-the-tiger intimidation with me! That's outlawed, too. Don't really understand that one, but we outlawed it just to be safe.

There are positives to the martial arts you only experience by doing and being involved in. The same can be said for guns (read my previous post about ballistic-do).

lt-rentaroo
03-15-2001, 06:47 PM
You know, both China and Japan have outlawed the practice of Martial Arts in the past and it only made them stronger:) I agree with Magma on this, banning guns will not solve the problem, society must look more deeply to find the true source of the problem. When I was in high school (many, many years ago) even the "toughest" kids never and I mean never spoke of bringing a gun to school or even tried. Today however, children bring all sorts of weapons to school; there seems to be a general lack of responsibility among these students. It seems as though they do not understand the consequences of their actions. You can blame whatever you want, but ultimately it is the person who commits the crime who is to blame; not the parents, not the gun, not television, and not rock and roll music.

Ballistic-do sounds interesting. When I was trained on the proper and safe use of a 9mm Beretta handgun, I learned what is called the "Weaver" stance. It is identical to a Hanmi stance in Aikido. The instructor also talked about centering and breath control, etc. The whole time I was thinking about how much the process was similar to Aikido, now there is something to think about.

Niadh
03-15-2001, 10:35 PM
First, a response to the origanl post, then read on if you wish.
YES.
The Media definetly takes a slant on ____ (fill in issue). The supposedly unbiased media shows a bent on any issue they report. The method they seem to favor for this is reporting inflammatory or immoral acts and then stating the "facts" of the story. Now the facts always seem to support the view of the writer. Hmm, how come?
Were martial arts maligned, in my opinion yes. And so ios anything else that the media doesn't agree with/ know about.

A few quotes and such then on to my speech
CNN-
"The Dunblane incident -- in which a teacher and her 16 pupils aged five and six were shot dead in their primary school gym -- led to calls for a nationwide ban on guns in the UK.
A total handgun ban was rejected by parliament but legislation was brought in to ban guns above .22 calibre and to restrict smaller calibre weapons to secure gun clubs. "

This is NOT an entire ban on guns. Yes all hadguns were later banned. I am a little tired now and haven't found the info yet, but I believe this was done after another Mass shooting in the UK.

"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized."
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Now the soap box,
Don't tell me not to mention Dunblane because it wounds you and Scotts deeply. It wounds me deeply that our kids are killing each other, it wounds the Jews deeply that Hitler Tried to erradicate them, and probably the Germans deeply that that is part of their history. I still live in a country where I have the right of freedom of speech. A freedom which was quoted in another post involving some of these same people.

Another issue I have here. "no one needs a gun so they should be banned" I am sorry, replace gun with: bagpipes/car/plane/sword/bokken/marital aid/tulip tutu or whatever you want.
Oh yeah those things don't kill many people indiscriminately.
My point exactly.

" Hunting is just a sport". Unless you don't have the money to by meat. Lets see. a pound of beef = (here) approx. $1.50. A 30-30 cartridge = approx $.50. a medium deer = approx 80lbs dressed. You do the math.
Oh but no-one hunts for thier food, other than sport. WRONG. I know those that need their hunted food to keep their families in meat. And don't try to tell me it is better to raise a cow in a barn and kill it to eat than it is to hunt your own meat.

YES, killing is wrong. Yes I want to see it stop. But to truly accomplish this we as a people (not nation, not race, not sex) need to change. A fundamental change to the very core of our beliefs and desires. Do I want to see this change. Yes. Do I think I, or my son, or my sons children will. Sadly no.
There, that is my rant. Now I sit and await the vultures

cbrf4zr2
03-15-2001, 10:42 PM
Niadh,

I am 100% on your side.

Niadh
03-15-2001, 10:46 PM
Thank you Ed.

Magma
03-16-2001, 07:39 AM
All right, Niadh! But I think we're out-talking those who disagree with us. I think they are getting tired.:D

Steve Speicher
03-16-2001, 09:57 AM
What I find humorous, in a not-so-funny way, is that gun violence, weapon violence, in schools is portrayed (mostly by the media) to be some new terror. Well maybe in happy-go-lucky suburbanite schools. But in the rougher innercity schools this type of thing happens much more often. But nobody cares really....

And most of the guns used in those situations aren't appropriated through legal channels. If I wanted a gun right now to do some damage I wouldn't go to a gun store and by a gun licensed to me. I would start trying to find connections who could get me a much more powerful gun that couldn't be traced back to me. Gun control does nothing to illegal guns.

And since I never really think about guns all that much, I don't understand how I live in a 'gun-culture'. As if my reason for living since birth has revolved around guns. Talk about not getting it! Must be how those Orientals all live in a sushi-culture.

Are guns a problem? Yeah, damn those Chinese for inventing gunpowder. Will stricter gun control help anything? No! And I base that answer off the fact that stricter gun control laws have been put in place a few times, and these incidents are occuring anyway. Gun control only affects those who choose to operate within the legal channels, something someone planning to do anything illegal with the gun would avoid.
-----------------------
To answer the original post, I think it is obvious that the media never portrays anything correctly, just whatever the producers think will get the highest ratings (ratings = money). I'd suggest that the US is a money-culture. Almost anything is acceptable in the name of the holy dollar. Unless it affects the government, cause they are the biggest gang of them all.

Jim23
03-16-2001, 01:37 PM
This whole thread confuses me.

But first let me say that I have no strong feelings either way with regards to gun "ownership".

Growing up, there was always a handgun in the house (my father's) and at high school (many moooons ago) I was a member of the rifle club. However, I have never personally owned a gun and don't think I'll ever need to, and I don't advocate banning/rectricting firearms - in my opinion, it's too late for that (meaning that the US is a gun culture and the criminals are already well-armed).

When I say I'm confused, I mean by the passionate discussion here usually defending the "gun culture" in the US - it's not even a balanced discussion. While I agree that people are the problem, not guns, per se (people do the killing), you can't argue with the facts regarding gun violence. THE US IS NUMBER 1 WORLDWIDE. The reason GUNS. I know that's difficult to admit.

Guns are here to stay, and at this point it would be stupid to disarm the law-abiding public when a certain "element" is heavily armed (look at other countries that have done it). Unfortunately, It's a bit of a no-win situation. Too many guns, too many gun-related crimes. Disarm the public, still too many gun-related crimes (maybe more).

If there weren't so many guns in circulation in the US, the problem wouldn't be as serious as it now is.

So, to sum it all up, I'm against AARG! but am thinking of joining Ballistic-do.

Jim23

[Edited by Jim23 on March 16, 2001 at 12:39pm]

Erik
03-16-2001, 03:26 PM
Steve Speicher wrote:
And most of the guns used in those situations aren't appropriated through legal channels. If I wanted a gun right now to do some damage I wouldn't go to a gun store and by a gun licensed to me. I would start trying to find connections who could get me a much more powerful gun that couldn't be traced back to me. Gun control does nothing to illegal guns.


Well, actually, that might not be exactly true.

According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft and 28% had acquired it through an illegal market such as a drug dealer or fence. Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least one gun, and 11% had sold or traded stolen guns.

However you add it up, that ain't most. It seems a lot of legal guns become illegal guns. Also, the paper where I got that quote (below) mentions that most violent crime is brought about by handguns, presumably because they are easily concealed and carried.

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/www2root/cjus/docs/guns.htm

Erik
03-16-2001, 03:55 PM
Magma wrote:
Snipped comments on banning MA.


Actually, this already kind of happens. Just get in a fight with someone and have the law find out you are a black belt. Get a good lawyer.

There is one significant difference between firearms and MA and it's a huge difference. It takes a significant amount of training to be able to wander into a public place and kill 10 people with your bare hands. Anyone ever hear of it happening? That type of killing is incredibly tough to perform for a variety of reasons if only for the physical limitations and shear difficulty of killing someone with your bare hands. This is both physical and psychological.

A gun gives someone the ability to kill someone in the time it takes to pull the trigger. Because you didn't have to earn it, you likely don't appreciate this power.

Guns exist to kill living things and they are incredibly efficient at this. There is no noble purpose to a gun. You don't need guns to hunt (there are alternatives). You don't need guns for self-defense at least in most places. You don't need guns period. We just want them here in the US, for whatever reason, and people die because of it.

I'm with Jim23 on this one. I wish we'd never let this cat out of the bag but it's a damn big cat now and don't know what to do with it either.

cbrf4zr2
03-16-2001, 04:09 PM
Well I suppose I'll get out my bow (yes I own one) and go on a shooting with my bow and arrow. I bet I could take out 6 people with razor tips before getting taken down. Are you going to take away all the bows and arrows too?

Niadh
03-16-2001, 04:37 PM
Eric Said
"Also, the paper where I got that quote (below) mentions that most violent crime is brought about by handguns, presumably because they are easily concealed and carried."
Not to discredit what you quoted, just whom. Doesn't this bring us around to the original post of MEDIA BIAS.
Ok, I have to admit it. I am bias about the media.I agree with The Minnesotta Gov. That they are JACKALS.
Just thought that to be fair I should ad that disclaimer.
Niadh

chrisinbrasil
03-16-2001, 04:48 PM
After all this reading, I´ve done the unthinkable. I´ve actually missed training because I was reading this post. I know, I know. Bad... BAD Chris, go lay down.

Well, I think sport hunting is about as justifiable as sport assassination. Animals can´t talk to you but they are still alive, so unless you plan to eat them you shouldn´t be shooting them. If I walk up to a bear cub, momma bear wouldn´t think twice about tearing me a new... bellybutton. I was raised in a God-fearing (my father was a gun-owning, pastor-hunter)home. I was raised to respect life and others. My parents fell short in some respects as do most, but all in all they did a good job, I think. My point is: I know how to shoot quite well, but have never killed a human. I have some friends, a couple specifically. They don´t believe in spanking their children. They believe that physical aggression will not teach their children anything that a conversation won´t. The effect is that sometimes their two lovely little daughters throw unending temper tantrums or just walk all over them. I, on the other hand, was practically raised with a belt on my ass. I don´t think that will make me a psycho killer. Some people claim lack of discipline as a motive, some claim too much physical discipline as a motive. It all comes down to how said discipline is handed out. My father never hit me in the face... never hit me with a shovel... etc. Physical punishment therefore cannot be labeled as the problem, but the people who administer it and how, CAN and SHOULD. Therefore, guns cannot be labeled as the problem, but people who use them incorrectly, CAN and SHOULD.

Is this clear?

Another point is that today... we live in a society that at least in the people´s view, is governed by the people. It would be naive to say that could never change. No, there are no redcoats. Yes, there are spies, the CIA, which is not always our friend, ahlf the anti-American world, and criminals and deviants in general. The state of the Union as we know it could change. If it did, we might need guns, and I would be in line to get mine. When the people are oppressed, the people have a means of liberation through gun ownership. When people are attacked, people have a means of self-defense through gun ownership. I don´t have a gun right now which leads me to my next point.

I thought that was a pretty clever segué.

The point is that here in Brazil, the government has futily attempted to ban all private ownership of guns. Only police personnel, security guards, and some other (few) licensed people can have them. The result of banning guns in a country where guns are already widespread and prominent is quite comical. The citizens can´t have them (and surprisingly enough, generally don´t want them here in Brazil), but the criminals have gobs and gobs of weapons. All shapes and sizes. The population as a whole is a sitting duck. Yes, Brazil has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

Some people might argue that in a real situation, you´d never be able to use the gun, or the criminal would take it from you and add it to his collection. I say that whatever chance I have of saving my life and the life of others, is better than no chance. Maybe I´ll take his gun, who knows? After all, I don´t carry one, and would probably have the good sense to know when to attempt to disarm someone if I had the chance at all. If I did carry, maybe I wouldn´t have the chance to reach for my gun until he turned around to rape my wife, who knows? A chance is better than nothing. I think it´s pretty safe to say that when only criminals can have guns... we´ll be in trouble.

The media builds up the hype surrounding underage shooters, as they should, because such disaster should be a warning sign to the public. The problem is that they latch onto it because it sells and don´t help solve the problem, rather, capitalize on it. If you knew the Brazilian statistics, you would sit down and cry. Tears would role down your face for Brazil, for it´s poverty, for it´s children. Yet, somehow, the problem persists. It persists because not enough people that can do something, will. The people who should do something(government especially), spend their time making money while throwing up cheap housing and smoke screen solutions for the poor people to shut up and the rich people to feel comfortable. Driveby shootings and multiple assassinations are run-of-the-
mill here in Sao Paulo. Look up "chacina" (shaseenuh) in a Portuguese dicionary then find out how many there are each year and how many people need to die in one for it to qualify as one. You see 20 cases detailed in TIME magazine (which I have in my hands) over the past two years since Columbine and you´re all shocked to hell. The problems are much greater than guns. Guns can´t be removed from existence. The greater struggles of the human race are those against inequality, injustice, poverty, oppression, pollution (sounds strange in this context doesn´t it? Still, it´s one of humanities greatest foes) and corruption to name a couple of the worst. The rest is a mere shadow of these. A bi-product. People are the problem. You and you and you... and yes, me.

We should be molding children´s minds to prepare them for the pressures of life while attempting to do our part to change our rotting environment. People are the problem.

Niadh
03-16-2001, 06:15 PM
Chris,
Well put.

Jim23
03-16-2001, 06:16 PM
Hi Chris,

Loved your post!

Banning guns is not the problem (or solution). However, GUNS are the problem.

Guns AND people.

Want to see another hellhole, go to Kingston Jamaica. Look out for the drug guys on motorbikes with their headlights turned off at night - they carry sub machine guns and aren't afraid to use them!

Jim23

Erik
03-17-2001, 12:10 AM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
Well I suppose I'll get out my bow (yes I own one) and go on a shooting with my bow and arrow. I bet I could take out 6 people with razor tips before getting taken down. Are you going to take away all the bows and arrows too?

Maybe you could, but I sure couldn't. I'd do more damage to my arm with a bow than I would anyone else. I'm one of the few who would be better off with his hands. But anyone is better off with a gun.

Another point to consider. A bow, or a rifle for that matter, is not easily concealed. A handgun conceals very easily. Also, a bow and arrow is more personal than a gun. It doesn't distance killing like a gun does. No problem with bows.

Erik
03-17-2001, 12:13 AM
Jim23 wrote:
Want to see another hellhole, go to Kingston Jamaica. Look out for the drug guys on motorbikes with their headlights turned off at night - they carry sub machine guns and aren't afraid to use them!

Jim23

Few a thread I was trying to avoid, I'm sure here a lot.

Think former USSR as another pretty place. I was there in 1989 and even then it didn't feel terribly safe at times. I can only imagine what it's like today in that economic climate.

Jim ashby
03-17-2001, 02:57 PM
I live in Britain. I used to own guns, handguns, rifles you name it I had it. Then the government banned the private ownership of virtually all types of firearm. Guess what? People are still getting shot. Some people would call me a dangerous rambo loony ( some have!)as I also study Aikido. I never had to use my firearms when I had them, BUT I KNEW HOW and , to some people, that made me dangerous. I have had limited need to use my Aikido knowledge and, to some people that makes me dangerous. I beleive in a latin phrase my father taught me when I was very young, "Si vide pacem para bellum" if you would see peace, prepare for war.
have fun.

Magma
03-19-2001, 07:35 AM
OK, Ashby gets the gold star today... for having the funniest signature I've seen in a while. "Fatbloke." I like it.

But, I'm wondering about your latin... shouldn't it be "Si vide*s*..."? I don't know, just asking.

mj
03-19-2001, 12:07 PM
:p Isn't 'para bellum' a type of bullet?

AikidoSteve
03-19-2001, 01:27 PM
Having skimmed this post I feel compelled to contribute. I am a volunteer Aikido Instructor as well as a certified NRA Firearms instructor in five disciplines (also volunteer). So here are some of my thoughts on the above matter.

I see people with a little bit of power and no understanding abusing both firearms and martial arts. It's the unskilled martial artist that ends up hurting people. A person with out the full understanding of its power. The same attitudes can be applied to firearms. Should both be banned? I don't think so.

I feel the American media promotes the problem of violence, by elevating school shooters to a celebrity status. I remember the "karate chop" from programs like the "Man from U.N.C.L.E." and being told how kids were hurting other kids by using this blow to the back of the neck maneuver.

Further, America is becoming a nation of victims, and no one is responsible. Parents have lost the right to discipline their kids. One good whack on the bottom of a child and it's Social Services to the rescue.

By the way, without the use of firearms the American colonies would never have achieved independence. In the mid 1700's any derogatory remark about King George could mean death to the offensive party. And so we have the 1st amendment to our constitution - the right of freedom of speech. During the same period the British tried to control firearms of the colonists - an example is the Boston Massacre. And so the 2nd amendment was added to our constitution - the right to keep arms.

Boy I hate long-winded forum responses.

I think it is safe to say that more people would benefit by doing a tenkan and looking at the world from other's points of view. And try very hard not to be the biggest jerk on the block.

Yours in Aikihood

AikidoSteve
03-19-2001, 02:19 PM
mj wrote:
:p Isn't 'para bellum' a type of bullet?

Yes, it is. parabellum = before war. A bullet and firearm introduced in 1902 before WWI by George Luger. The Borchardt-Luger pistol was better known as the 9mm Parabellum or the Luger and fired the 9mm round (.355? in). The German Armed Forces started using the Luger around 1908. I believe the 9mm is still the most widely chambered military pistol in the world.

Yours in ShootingSports,

Nick
03-19-2001, 02:25 PM
AikidoSteve wrote:
mj wrote:
:p Isn't 'para bellum' a type of bullet?

Yes, it is. parabellum = before war.


Antebellum is "before the war"... para bellum is best known from the phrase, "Se vis pacem, para bellum", meaning "If you wish for peace, you must be prepared for war."

And they said I would never use my Latin...

Nick

mj
03-19-2001, 03:12 PM
Nick, you should really start reading the other posts... :D

Nick
03-19-2001, 05:13 PM
hmm, spose so... had to go and my browser puts me at the last post-- guess I didn't scroll up enough, sumi masen...

Nick

chrisinbrasil
03-19-2001, 05:29 PM
Hi all,
AikidoSteve, I liked your post. Why can´t people understand that just because they feel strongly about something doesn´t make them right? Have your opinion! You´re as entitled to it as I am to a gun. Same Constitution remember? Decide to take away the right to guns, and maybe someone will decide to take away your right to an opinion... and you... hehe wouldn´t even have a gun to stop them now would you tough guys? I can guarantee that they would have guns! If they didn´t, it would never work now would it? Sitting duck, sitting duck, nah nah nah nah nah naaaah.

Seriously, discuss, but don´t attack. Your opinions are all equally valid.
:)

Guest_779
03-27-2001, 06:55 PM
Mj (Mark Johnston) has made numerous precise statements regarding our nation’s "gun culture". Let us not forget that many Americans are a "culture" of guns and violence, it won’t disappear overnight. The term culture can be defined as an entire set of beliefs and values strongly held toward something, it’s engrained within. For centuries now many attitudes and belief systems have been inherited through different social institutions—such as family, church, school, media, peers, etc. Whether or not these "values" and "beliefs" are good or bad is a personal evaluation; they simply exist in society at large. A wise person would investigate the origin of a certain set-of-beliefs and question whether or not they coincide with "The Way of Harmony", using O-Sensei's teachings as a standard. Personally, I refuse to own a gun due to it’s image and symbol it reflects on the present day society. As an Aikidoka I have a mandate from heaven to venerate higher images and archetypes of greater value, such as Mokuso of "our" path we all share together— Aikido.

Mark Cochran
03-27-2001, 10:19 PM
Hey real quick show of hands here. How many people have trained with a bokken in Aikido. I have infact my instructer has gone so far as to offer coarses in kenjitsu. So if my pistol was taken. If my bow and arrows were all taken. I could still snap and walk into a crowed and draw my katana and remove a few limbs before any one had the time to call the cops. Considering that the average response time is five minutes of more I could do some real damage. All this with a tradition non projectile weapon. Thankfully I don't beleave in unnessary violence.

ian
03-28-2001, 06:45 AM
The journalist has made some mistakes in the inferences he/she drew. It presupposes that martial arts and shooting on a range are bad whereas an obsession with Martin Luther King is good. This may not be the case at all. Many people find martial arts is a release for aggression. I have also found that some things that supposedly pacify you can actually make you more up tight (on a yoga retreat I found after a couple of days of gentle movement and subdued whispering all I wanted to do was shout and run around madly).

A correlation is also not proof of a cause (i.e, in the U.S. the number if Bishops in a City is positively correlated with alcohol consumption - however this is due to bigger cities having more Bishops and more people (consuming alcohol)).

Ian

Magma
03-28-2001, 07:42 AM
Oh, my...

Jefferson wrote:
As an Aikidoka I have a mandate from heaven to venerate higher images and archetypes of greater value.....

[Edited by Magma on March 28, 2001 at 07:00am]

sceptoor
03-28-2001, 11:17 AM
It's pretty simple to me. Outlawing something doesn't cure the problem.

Drugs have been outlawed for many years. Does the U.S. have a drug problem?? uh...yeah.

There's also a law that bans the carrying of "knives" over so many inches long. Do you really think that stops people from buying them(from the "street" or otherwise) and/or carrying them?? Don't be so naive.

Banning guns and successfully collecting them ALL would be about as realistic as banning the $50 dollar bill and successfully removing them from society. You'll never get rid of them all, and then only the criminals will have guns, and will only make the honest citizen more vulnerable to crime.

A side note. All ex-cons convicted of a felony are pretty much banned from ever having guns again. Do you really think that stops them from buying guns anyway??

mj
03-28-2001, 11:40 AM
:( Hi again. Everyone has a right to what they believe about guns, bows and arrows, (what happened to those native americans again?) any other weapons, MAs and anything they like. However, most Americans, and this is NOT a personal criticism of anyone, are brought up in a culture that says guns are good, owning them is a right, taking away that right is wrong. This is the culture. It is the way they are brought up as children. As a generalisation, (maybe a bad one, but generally true,) it is the same culture that causes them to attack other countries so often, to use military or economic power to force other countries to do what they want. This is uncomfortable ground to discuss. It brings out strong feelings. Its purpose was to make the US feel 'apart' from the rest of the world ie. the 'cold war'. It was insularism. Now that the cold war is over, won by economic pressure by using an unsustainable arms race, the US is turning back into an Imperial Power. The idea is to make the american way everybodies way. Mainly with economic influence (trade treaties, favoured nation status etc) but also with military power. Places affected are European countries, Middle East countries, South American ones, Cuba, China, Taiwan... in fact the whole world. In 'most of the world' guns are not seen as a right, or even a necessity. This is not to insult any Americans, it's maybe just the rest of the world, looking at the US using the biggest arsenal of weapons in human history, knowing what they've done before, getting nervous. Not to deny anyone the rights they are born with, or endanger anyone by making them defenseless... just to say that no society was ever perfect, and arming everyone on the streets isn't the right way to go. However, no-one really expects the American culture to change from outside. If everyone in my country had a gun, I'd want one. All I'm saying, (and I know that I'm in the minority here ;) ) is that maybe gun control is something to start thinking about seriously. Over 3000 children are killed each year in the US by guns. 10 a day, what about their rights?

Now, this post is not meant to attack any person or belief system, gun control is not the worlds biggest problem, I don't have an axe to grind or whatever, but to lead someone is an aikido principle, to lead by example is a human one. Surely it is a better 'example' to 'lead' by to say... no guns. (Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Christ, John Lennon...)

mj
03-28-2001, 11:44 AM
Jefferson, I once said to a dan grade that I thought his technique was 'esoteric'. He went in a bad mood with me because he thought I'd insulted him, but I hadn't. Now YOU... are esoteric!

cbrf4zr2
03-28-2001, 11:49 AM
As far as the 3000 children that die every year due to a gun related incident, where are you getting that number? And I'd venture to say a good number of those are self inflicted - so let the stupid ones die off - Darwinism at it's finest. I go too far? Too bad.

mj
03-28-2001, 11:55 AM
These statistics are easily available outside the US, about 23000 adults, over 3000 children, every year. Darwinism is about species, and about 'culling the herd' of the weak inside a species. I don't think Darwin meant children being murdered by unnatural means, only natural death Chris.

mj
03-28-2001, 11:56 AM
Oops, sorry, Ed, I meant Ed :)

Jim23
03-28-2001, 11:58 AM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
so let the stupid ones die off - Darwinism at it's finest.

That's quite the statement. Be careful what you wish for. ;)

Jim23

cbrf4zr2
03-28-2001, 12:01 PM
Darwinism is all about survival of the fittest - not necessarily physically - but mentally as well. And most of those children I'm guessing aren't in the 3-12 year old range, my guess is they are teenagers, most likely involved in some sort of gang activity, and in my opinion, that's a pretty stupid thing to be doing. So all the rhetoric about "the children, the (shiny, shiny) children" won't fly with me - why do we need more gang members kept alive?

cbrf4zr2
03-28-2001, 12:04 PM
Jim -

Don't get me started on the stupid ones :D.

mj
03-28-2001, 12:09 PM
Maybe you've been watching to may Death Wish movies, Ed ;) Being in a gang is a perfectly normal part of growing up, most children/kids/gang members grow out of it as they mature,we've all been in one sort or another as kids. It's not the point thoght, is it? It's how society looks after the weaker ones, we're not animals, in your sense anyway.

Jim23
03-28-2001, 12:14 PM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
Jim -

Don't get me started on the stupid ones :D.

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

Joking aside, I agree with mj on this one. I have nothing against gun ownership (especially if all the wrong people own guns), however, I do feel much safer walking through the streets of downtown Toronto than downtown New York or Miami.

Jim23

cbrf4zr2
03-28-2001, 12:15 PM
Pose for a second that Darwin is correct, and there is no God or creation, or anything that sets us apart from the beasts of the land. How did we evolve as a species - survival of the fittest, adaptation, losing what was genetically bad through individuals lacking in necessary survival skills. Who are we to say that at this point in our evolution it's time to stop? There's always room to move forward - or die off - in evolution and Darwinism. Why are you or me or anyone to say otherwise - it is survival of the fittest - and if I'm not one of the lucky ones to advance onward - so be it. It's the laws of nature.

Jim23
03-28-2001, 12:20 PM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
Pose for a second that Darwin is correct, and there is no God or creation, or anything that sets us apart from the beasts of the land. How did we evolve as a species - survival of the fittest, adaptation, losing what was genetically bad through individuals lacking in necessary survival skills. Who are we to say that at this point in our evolution it's time to stop? There's always room to move forward - or die off - in evolution and Darwinism. Why are you or me or anyone to say otherwise - it is survival of the fittest - and if I'm not one of the lucky ones to advance onward - so be it. It's the laws of nature.

You could be right.

BUT, pose for a moment that Darwin was wrong, and you've lost your argument.

Meaning, that's just your opinion.

And that's mine. ;)

Jim23

cbrf4zr2
03-28-2001, 12:26 PM
That's true Jim,

I could be wrong - but don't count on it :D
And as far as walking through downtown Miami - how did YOU survive to make it this far in life? :D
I drove through there, and from the inside of my car I knew better than to not walk it.



(good thing I sometimes proofread - I originally had said the "inside of my cat" but I think that discussion would be on a different website altogether.)

Jim23
03-28-2001, 12:37 PM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
That's true Jim,

I could be wrong - but don't count on it :D
And as far as walking through downtown Miami - how did YOU survive to make it this far in life?

Actually, I didn't. It was a theory, just like Darwin. :)

I hope you got my point though, guns don't cause the problem, but they usually add to the problem.

Jim23

Jim ashby
03-28-2001, 01:49 PM
Sorry I've not replied before. As for "Fatbloke", I'm 17 stone so I could be classed as less than svelte.
Have fun.

chrisinbrasil
03-28-2001, 03:19 PM
Someone said (and I´m not gonna look for the quote, you know who you are), that "we all have been in gangs at some point or another in our childhood" and that "gangs are a perfectly normal part of growing up". These are not direct quotes but very good paraphrases.

#1. We have not all been involved in some form or another of gangs when we were kids. Gangs by modern day definition are rebelious, aggressive, immature, groups of insecure, over-zealous, miscreants. That´s not what they used to be. Yes, we´ve all had some groupies but they were far from being gangs.

#2. Gangs, speaking of the group described above, are only a normal part of modern day childhood because we, as ignorant adults, have left our children out to dry by being at work for 12 hours a day, not guiding children or correcting them properly, and not providing the mental and emotional care, support, and discipline necessary to keep them away from this sort of activity.

I would also say that if this kind of behavior is tolerated, we will have much to fear. Kids should hang out together and have fun in their age/social groups. That doesn´t mean shooting people and commiting other crimes. To say that owning a gun promotes this behavior is a tremendous leap in logic. Further, these kids are old enough to know that the above mentioned groups are trouble, and by getting into it they have made the choice to be trouble makers and/or takers.

I don´t subscribe to the "shiny shiny children" theory either. If kids commit suicide, what can we do about it? I know, lets ban guns!!! Whatever! They´ll find other ways. The suicide thing is a response to depression, anxiety, insecurity, etc. I have a better idea. Lets shoot all the ignorant parents who would cause such conflict in their children. Less children being shot. Why? Cause we´d have healthier children. You can say "Guns are bad, guns are the problem!!!! Grrrr!" til you´re blue in the face. It doesn´t mean you´re right. Are there any real answers?

mj
03-28-2001, 04:30 PM
Hi again...
Chris, maybe someone who didn't experience a 'gang' at some time in their life would turn into a crazed loner...
No, kids don't 'join gangs' because of bad parents. I'm talking about socialising in a group seperate from family life, not being led into violence/drugs/crime etc. If we didn't experience these things, we would not have the chance to 'grow up'

Kids do not know right and wrong because they are told it, but because they experience it, if I'm wrong it would mean you would perfect every aikido move by being told it just once.

Kids are too immature, so was I, (not that I'm much better now!) so were you.

In your third paragraph you try to say that owning a gun does not promote shooting... no disrespect, (but...) but that doesn't really make sense.
I think you are only talking from your own personal experience here. Do you have kids? How old?

I did not say that guns are bad. I'm saying that a society that promotes them generally IS bad. Because guns can then be part of the solution, which is not good - because everyone, not only saints, good people and parents are looking for solutions to lifes problems... everyone, yes even 'bad' gangs, 'good' gangs, loners, the frustrated, the angry, the jealous and the zealous... all have this as part of the solution. Remember, if you get one so does everyone else. And the process of 'growing up', which is often painful, very painful, can be avoided. And kids have a lot of experience in laying the blame at other peoples door.

Are their any answers...? Good question, what do you think...?

Anyway, I appreciate what you said, and I won't try to change what you think, because... we disagree ;)

chrisinbrasil
03-29-2001, 02:50 PM
mj wrote:
Hi again...
I'm talking about socialising in a group seperate from family life, not being led into violence/drugs/crime etc. If we didn't experience these things, we would not have the chance to 'grow up'

Kids do not know right and wrong because they are told it, but because they experience it, if I'm wrong it would mean you would perfect every aikido move by being told it just once.
Are their any answers...? Good question, what do you think...?

Anyway, I appreciate what you said, and I won't try to change what you think, because... we disagree ;)

I said socializing was good and necessary just like you did, reread my post. I said that gangs as I described them were not. And that is what gang means today. It´s not like the Little Rascals anymore.

Kids need to experience right from wrong, they can´t be taught? That sounds far out buddy. I would never call you a negligent parent because I don´t know you or if you have kids, but what you just said means that your kids need to kill someone to find out that it´s wrong. That was not a well thought out statement in my opinion. It´s like saying you have to have a knot on your head from every screw up and can´t learn from other´s mistakes and successes. If that is true, society would be A LOT different today. You can learn right from wrong. That´s exactly what parents do... is teach good morals, ethics, values, etc. (read: right from wrong) or at least they should. IMHO.

I think we´ve finally agreed...

We don´t agree. :)

Have a great evening. (it´s evening here)

mj
03-29-2001, 03:23 PM
Hi Chris. No, you can't learn from someone elses experience... unless or until you have the same experience yourself. Then you can use it in your own life. What are the Little Rascals? I can teach my kids (6, 12, 13) not to play with fire, but if they do... they won't understand what I meant until they get burnt. Kids don't understand death, because it, normally, isn't a personal experience until later in life. Kids understand, in this case, John Wayne Tom Cruise Sly Arnie Chuck Van Damme Eastwood Willis or whoever. Not through experience, but what they have 'seen', which is entirely different. It's a culture. Tom and Jerry, Itchy and Scratchy whatever.
I would say again, respectfully Chris, how can you argue against my statement, paraphrased, that owning guns promotes shootings. No guns, no shootings. Criminals with guns? an entirely different thing, socio-economic blah blah whatever. They are outside of society and always will be. (Unless they are romanticized by a gun loving media culture.) I'm not being personal, with you or anyone else.
Of course all parents aspire to teach good morals to their kids. But 'morals' are to do with society, and parents, and the beliefs of both. A culture that wants guns, IMHO, has failed before it starts. On the other hand I DO see what you are saying. We just come from (apparently very) different places... ;)

cbrf4zr2
03-29-2001, 04:12 PM
MJ

So let me get this straight...criminals with guns fall oustide society...hmmm...interesting. Basically it sounds like you are saying "they aren't in our society and we should ignore them." Well that's fine and dandy - let's take all the guns out of responsible people's hands and the criminals (who have illegal unregistered weapons anyway) can just keep their weapons because they "don't have them" according to the books. Oh yeah...that's going to make me sleep safe at night. So I'm sleeping in my bedroom with my wife and I'm defenseless because someone has broke into my house and is wielding a shotgun. Oh wait - that won't ever happen because criminals don't live in your society. Sorry MJ, try again.

mj
03-29-2001, 04:55 PM
Chris, you've ignored all the points I made, and then twisted one and argued with it. Put it this way, I, my wife, and my children, sleep safely at night - and guns are banned in our society over here. If you need a gun to sleep safe at night, you must think someone is going to break into your house and kill you. Me, I just have a good nights sleep. Personally, I wouldn't sleep safe at night in case someone knew I had a gun if I were the way you want people to be. What about the points I made before... :rolleyes: Incidentally, illegal and legal guns are made by the same companies aren't they.... still making money... mainly US companies aren't they (Although not all, I admit) Anyway, I sleep safe every night, and it doesn't cost me money. And it doesn't cost me the thought/acceptance that I have to kill or be killed to do it... Why the hell would someone break into your house with a shotgun...?! Relax p:

mj
03-29-2001, 04:57 PM
That was meant to be :p, I think...

Guest_779
03-29-2001, 05:31 PM
Once again I have to agree with Mj (Mark Johnston), especially concerning his post where he asserts the U.S. is becoming Imperialism. Although its true, due to the evolution of technology we Americans have witnessed diametrical forms of economic structures; what was once considered capitalism appropriated a plutocracy that now dominates world markets. The idea of a representative democracy is reserved for the fortunate upper percentile class, while the rest of the populace (the majority) struggles under the iron palm of a neo-fascist system. Congress "represents" the aristocratic class. This may come as a shock to many Americans, considering the years of propaganda they've experienced, but the hard face of REALITY ("makoto" in Aikido), by years of my assiduous study in sociology, I've discovered our government to be one that was established for "The people" but later ended up being owned and manipulated by only "The wealthy few people". This is only possible because the motto in this country, as sad as it is, is "Money is power" and "Money talks". And it's the upper class that owns nearly all the money that allows them to talk; they own the media, the Senate, the Judicial system, and the Executive level. They own and mandate the entire ‘means of production'. Many individuals, whose minds are still given to the mainstream pop culture, would argue that this upper percentile class deserves the money it possesses. However, I beg to differ. They accumulated their wealth through a passed on inheritance of systematic exploitation of hard working Americans over centuries of a democratic facade. Furthermore, they've abused our military by deploying solders to invade weaker, innocent nations to steal their natural resources (all for profit) and then set up a puppet dictatorship all in the name of "Democracy", which is obviously factitious in this nation. This is not only the biggest deception toward the American populace but the biggest sin toward humanity. Whew! I had to get that off my chest. Thanks for opening a can of worms, the truth needed to be discussed.

mj
03-29-2001, 05:40 PM
Jefferson... excellent.
As a non-American I couldn't use most of the things that you stated... (especially on an aikido forum, but hey, I didn't start this thread) I agree entirely. With 100% regret... I sympathise with your (US) position. Maybe sanity will prevail, and again, (and again...) this is not meant with disrespect to anyone.

Jim23
03-29-2001, 06:20 PM
mj wrote:
I, my wife, and my children, sleep safely at night - and guns are banned in our society over here. If you need a gun to sleep safe at night, you must think someone is going to break into your house and kill you.

Mark,

It is impossible to convince anyone of a concept so far-removed from that which they already hold near and dear to their hearts - in this case it's guns in America.

A couple years ago I stayed a few weeks with a friend who lived in the beautiful mountains way above Kingston, Jamaica. If any of you know Jamaica, you know that it is crime-ridden and gun-ridden, even though guns are supposedly illegal (they even have a "gun court" for offenders). The population is quite well armed and many people even carry handguns while going about their daily business. Needless to say, you DON'T sleep very well at night without the securty of an "all-inclusive hotel" or armed security guards roaming around the house.

Anyway, a week after I left the island, this friend of mine (who usually sleeps with a gun under his pillow AND has two security guards on his property) had just returned with his family from a trip to Florida, and as it was late he "overlooked" taking his gun to bed with him (geez).

At around two in the morning his wife (who just happens to be Scottish :)) heard people in the house and did the blood-curdling scream thing. The intruders quickly escaped without causing any harm (which is unusual). Later, after the police had left, he decided to check around his property as he was still concerned about the safety of his family. While he was doing so, three men jumped him and he promptly shot and killed two of them (needless to say, he moved house the next day and country the next year).

Guns don't cause violence or murder - they just make them easier. BTW, in the not too distant past, before the gun epidemic, Jamaica was a relatively safe place. Not perfect by any means, as the country has always had petty crime (which tends to accompany poverty), but not the war zone it is today. The gun rules!

If a certain "element" in society is armed, then it only makes sense that guns be available to "decent" people as well. Otherwise, guess who loses?

Having said all that ... ever been to Bermuda? I've seen young girls jogging along the waterfront at night. Old couples walking the streets at midnight. Guess what? NO GUNS! That's right, even the police don't carry them ... they say "Stop! or I'll say Stop again!"

But, boy don't you sleep well at night!

Jim23

Erik
03-29-2001, 08:51 PM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
let's take all the guns out of responsible people's hands and the criminals (who have illegal unregistered weapons anyway)

Apparently they aren't all illegal and if they are then it seems they are stealing them from the responsible folks.

According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft, and 28% had acquired it through an illegal market such as a drug dealer or fence, 10% had stolen at least one gun, and 11% had sold or traded stolen guns.

Oh yeah...that's going to make me sleep safe at night. So I'm sleeping in my bedroom with my wife and I'm defenseless because someone has broke into my house and is wielding a shotgun.

Where do you live that you lie awake at night worrying about this? In my 35 years I've had exactly one physical confrontation and one very scary moment that didn't go physical. I've never felt scared where I've lived or been worried in the last several years.

I think that if you really feel threatened this way then the answer isn't a gun but in getting together with your neighbors and the community. I think it would be a much better answer.

Niadh
03-29-2001, 09:23 PM
Ok, ta few responses.
Jim 23 ( I think) said he would feel safer walking the streets of Toronto than miami or NYC. Ok, I will accept that. But I would rather walk the streets of this town, where over 75% own firearms, than the streets of Toronto. The point is we are all comfortable where we are.
Oh, and (mj?) I sleep well at night. No worries about someone breaking in with a shotgun. But that is because if I worried about all the times my life could be in danger, I would be a case study somewhere. And I sure as HELL wouldn't ride in a car. Want to throw up THOSE child fatality numbers. I know, we should just ban cars and all ride bikes. And those countries that don't join us because of their Car Cultures, well let me tell you how I think it should be. Yes it is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. this is mine.
As for the post about Bows not being the issue (yet). A few points. Until after the Civil War (US that is), the Indians could fire their bows significantly faster than the Expanding europeans. I know people that could still out shoot all guns( except for semi-auto/ automatics) in the hands of average people.
The other point about bows. With the exception of the single shot or bolt action pistols designed for long range shooting (which are really just very short rifles, but that is another discussion), the effective range of a person shooting a pistol, ok handgun, is measured in feet. The effective range of someone with a bow is measured in yards. Now I will agree that three hundred feet is one-hundred yards, so please don't argue that I am talking semantics. A one-hundred yard shot is not out of the question for someone of moderate skill with a bow on large animal size targets(read human if you must). Try that with the Colt 45 or 9mm Beretta (Italian make I believe) that everyone seems to think all us Americans own and carry, and you will most likely be measuring the distance off target in yards. If someone reading this is the exception, please contact the US Olympic team so we can bring home more medals in the shooting sports categories. Oh, by the way, how is it that if it is a US gun culture, shooting sports are included in an international competition. And I might add one that other members of the world communtiy, including the UK and Australia, field teams in?

Jim23
03-29-2001, 09:30 PM
Niadh, I tried reading you post, but ... never mind. Gotta run. Sheesh.

Ji ... never mind

Niadh
03-29-2001, 09:35 PM
Ok, I got carried away. But oh well. The part response to you was hust the first few lines.

Jim23
03-29-2001, 09:38 PM
Fine,

Where is this town?

Niadh
03-29-2001, 09:42 PM
Southern Northeast NY

Erik
03-29-2001, 10:07 PM
Niadh wrote:
snipped...

It's very interesting that every major standing army that I can think of was using guns long before this time. Even the English which had a tradition of archery had moved to firearms. The Japanese used the arquebus and they also had a tradition of archery. Why? Guns are easier to kill with. They require less training and skill to kill than a bow does.

The other issue with bows vs handguns is that a handgun is concealable. You can carry a gun and no one will know without a metal detector.

By the way, I don't dispute your points, but there's a reason people use guns and not bows to commit crimes these days.

[Edited by Erik on March 29, 2001 at 09:11pm]

Niadh
03-29-2001, 10:40 PM
Erik,
Yes, there is a reason that people use guns, not bows, as you said, less skill, easier to conceal. I am not saying that guns=bows, but the point was made that bows wouldn't be a problem. My point was (and I admit I wasn't real clear about this) that there will always be a problem, as long as what we address as the problem is the item used, not the root causes. No I don't think that taking away violent video games and all the other quick fixes that the BIASED media tout as cure-alls will work. As I believe I posted earlier in this thread ( sorry, don't feel like looking back through them all) we (humans) need to change at the deepest core of our existance for these fears to be allieviated. I don't see that happening real soon. But neither do I see the quick grab of .... ( guns, bows, cars, tulip tutus) as a real solution.
When my brother and sister were younger, they were playing outside with (gasp) jarts (lawn darts). They came inside and asked my parents for some band-aids, and then went back out. My father, who realized that none of them were bleeding, went to see what they were doing. One of the Jarts had punctured the tire on my aunts car, and they were trying to fix it with a band-aid. Now whether or not they were enterprising, I find the analogy similar. The jarts weren't at fault, the kids using them were, albiet accident or not. The response would be to teach them to use the Jarts safer, to be aware (as parents) of what was happening and where, and to own up to something they did. Instead, try to find Jarts nowadays. And persons who take responsibility for her/his actions.


[Edited by Niadh on March 29, 2001 at 09:44pm]

Erik
03-29-2001, 11:48 PM
Niadh wrote:
My point was (and I admit I wasn't real clear about this) that there will always be a problem, as long as what we address as the problem is the item used, not the root causes. No I don't think that taking away violent video games and all the other quick fixes that the BIASED media tout as cure-alls will work. As I believe I posted earlier in this thread ( sorry, don't feel like looking back through them all) we (humans) need to change at the deepest core of our existance for these fears to be allieviated. I don't see that happening real soon. But neither do I see the quick grab of .... ( guns, bows, cars, tulip tutus) as a real solution.

I agree with what you are saying. The item alone isn't the cause of the problem, yet, this item sure isn't part of the solution either.

cbrf4zr2
03-30-2001, 07:28 AM
Why did everyone dismiss the Switzerland argument? 100% of the households are required to own not just a gun, but a machine gun! (oh - the horror) But their crime rate is five times lower than the USA where not EVERYBODY has one. And I thought I read in 1996, or 1997, there was only eleven murders in Switzerland (couldn't see how many were commited with weapons.) How many murders were there in Scotland/UK/(anywhere else guns are banned) in that same year - probably higher.
So it's obviously just the people - not the guns. But even as a gun owner two times over, and I could be guaranteed that no one else would have one either - I'd turn it. I still have my bow and quiver of arrows. The only way you're getting it is to pry it from my cold dead hands.

andrew
03-30-2001, 07:39 AM
Well, obviously there's no easy explanations, but Switzerland is obviously different to many other countries. They prescribe heroin to addicts there now too, and it's working quite well for them. That doesn't mean it'll work well everywhere... (Oh, and they only gave women the vote in the 1980s. That must be the most laid back population in the world. You have had riots anywhere else in the western world that left it that long..)
Maybe only people of Swiss extraction should be licenced to carry firearms?

Andrew

cbrf4zr2 wrote:
Why did everyone dismiss the Switzerland argument? .

cbrf4zr2
03-30-2001, 07:41 AM
So it's obviously just the people - not the guns. But even as a gun owner two times over, and I could be guaranteed that no one else would have one either - I'd turn it. I still have my bow and quiver of arrows. The only way you're getting it is to pry it from my cold dead hands.

I'm an idiot - that should have said:

So it's obviously just the people - not the guns. But even as a gun owner two times over, and I could be guaranteed that no one else would have one either - I'd turn it. I still have my bow and quiver of arrows. But until EVERYONE else's guns are gone, The only way you're getting it is to pry it from my cold dead hands.

Jim23
03-30-2001, 07:41 AM
Ed,

Isn't Switzerland #2 per capita after the US?

The problem is guns AND violent people. Without violent people, guns aren't really dangerous (except for accidents, etc.) and without guns, violent people are less dangerous.

You can't simply disarm the public - that would be stupid and wrong! - but at least admit the obvious.

Jim23

Magma
03-30-2001, 08:13 AM
Wow, we have those dirty americans boxed up, don't we? Just cram them down in there, slap a label on them (imperialistic, gun-lovers, idiots, etc.), and throw them on the shelf.

IMO, we don't have these school shootings today because kids are growing up in a gun-culture (with such vivid pictures painted as of children swimming in a vat of guns, and who receive an allowance not in money but in ammunition), but rather because kids, as they always have done, are looking for attention. In the fifties it was fast cars, then long hair and rock music. The thing is, society is tired of being shocked. They've been shocked so much that very little shocks them anymore.

And just so that we're clear, the following two statements are not equivalent, nor is one the result of the other:
1) outlawing guns
2) removing guns from society

Guns will still be present in society even if they are outlawed. So the kid who is looking for attention, looking for a way to shock people, is going to find a gun, regardless.

I think its delusional to think that outlawing guns will create some utopian society, or even one more peaceful. I think that MJ, Jim23, et al, are missing this point that CBR, myself, and Chris are making: gun ownership, just as a possibility - not a surity, is what lets us "sleep at night." That is, a criminal doesn't know if the owner of the house he's about to break into owns a gun, or two, or three.

People commit crimes at least in part because they think that they can get away with it (excluding dementia or crimes of passion). They think that they can get away with it because they are in some way more powerful than those who would stop them. If a criminal has a gun (because, remember, outlawing them does not remove them from society) and he can be relatively sure that they homeowner does not, he is going to believe more strongly that he can get away with his crimes, and he won't even hesitate.

Therefore, it isn't necessarily the gun under the pillow that allows CBR to sleep better, but the pause it gives to would be criminals - that this is no easy mark.

Jim23
03-30-2001, 08:25 AM
Magma wrote:

I think its delusional to think that outlawing guns will create some utopian society, or even one more peaceful. I think that MJ, Jim23, et al, are missing this point that CBR, myself, and Chris are making: gun ownership, just as a possibility - not a surity, is what lets us "sleep at night." That is, a criminal doesn't know if the owner of the house he's about to break into owns a gun, or two, or three.

Magma,

I understand your point 100%. I think if you read my post, you'll see that.

You can't (easily) disarm a society once guns are entrenched, however, that doesn't make it right or good.

I'm making a point also - it's just a different one.

Jim23

andrew
03-30-2001, 08:39 AM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
But until EVERYONE else's guns are gone, The only way you're getting it is to pry it from my cold dead hands. [/B]

That makes a lot more sense now. I thought the first time that you meant you'd be willing to give up your gun, but never your bow.
andrew

cbrf4zr2
03-30-2001, 08:44 AM
andrew -

yeah, I think part of my stupidity in that original post comes from me owning a gun, because, you know all us american gun owners are capitalist, imperialist, genocidal, maniacal, idiots - well at least according to a few people on this thread we are. Actually one simple word would solve all the problems in todays world:
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
But don't ask me to sing it cause...damn.

andrew
03-30-2001, 10:44 AM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
andrew -

yeah, I think part of my stupidity in that original post comes from me owning a gun, because, you know all us american gun owners are capitalist, imperialist, genocidal, maniacal, idiots -

Now, now, most of us arrogant europeans think you're all capitalist, imperialist, genocidal, maniacal, idiots whether you've guns or not.

(Just in case somebody misses it.... I'M JOKING! I'M JOKING! I'M JOKING! I'M JOKING! I'M JOKING! I'M JOKING! I'M JOKING! I'M JOKING! I'M JOKING! I'M JOKING!)

Whatever side of the whole guns argument we're all screaming at each other from though (emotive stuff!), I think we'd all be happier if some of the people who managed to build up weapons arsenals had been unable to do so. That goes for anywhere. My own brother has a gun, and I don't care about that. A lot of the people on here have guns, and I don't really care about that.
I'm pretty much anti-guns because they can be abused, but I realise (now)that I have to respect that most gun owners are responsible, and have their own strong opinions, occasionally about where I can stick mine.
I'd like it if my feeling uneasy about the maniac in a million didn't come accross as a personal insult to anybody, but I won't lose any sleep over it. I feel that it should be harder to get hold of firearms, but if anybody comes up with another way of reducing the potential for the misuse of firearms, then I take my hat off to them.
Who knows, maybe teaching about guns in schools (I'm serious here) so that kids respect them (and guns'd lose the mytique they must have to some)would dramatically reduce the problems. Maybe something else. I just hope there's a solution. OK?

andrew

Jim23
03-30-2001, 10:44 AM
Jefferson wrote:
...what was once considered capitalism appropriated a plutocracy ...while the rest of the populace (the majority) struggles under the iron palm of a neo-fascist system.

It's Friday ...

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?"

Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me Capitalism. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the People. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense."

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed. The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now."

The father says, "Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about".

The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in Deep Shit.

Jim23

Erik
03-30-2001, 11:19 AM
andrew wrote:
Who knows, maybe teaching about guns in schools (I'm serious here) so that kids respect them (and guns'd lose the mytique they must have to some)would dramatically reduce the problems. Maybe something else. I just hope there's a solution. OK?

andrew

To me that is the core problem with guns. You don't have to earn the responsibility of having one. We'll give one to anyone with no training because it's a god given right in the US.

chrisinbrasil
03-30-2001, 03:02 PM
Hi,
Magma, I liked your post. That, among other things, is one of my points.

mj, check the person answering your posts. I think you´ll find I didn´t ignore any arguments. My signature is Christopher... not Ed.

This message is brought to you by the National Post Signers Awareness Committee.

:)

mj
03-30-2001, 04:03 PM
I don't check my posts. My secretary does that. :D

Chrisinbrazil Cbfrzr2 What's the difference.... I know you're both the same person/people

cbrf4zr2
03-30-2001, 04:07 PM
mj wrote:
I don't check my posts. My secretary does that. :D

Chrisinbrazil Cbfrzr2 What's the difference.... I know you're both the same person/people


Uhhhhh...I'm sure Chris will take issue with that statement as will I...what gave you that idea?

mj
03-30-2001, 04:37 PM
Feel free to speak for anyone on the post. While you are at it check this page, 11, and the first page, to see how well I take your insults because we disagree. I get 5 minutes every half hour or so to check my posts cause my son is playing Deus Ex online, sorry for getting you mixed up. But he's off now... I've got time to kill... (Bang Bang :D)

mj
03-30-2001, 04:44 PM
And Ed... you did call yourself an idiot on page ten for writing the wrong thing, too... just like me... :D

Chocolateuke
03-31-2001, 09:12 AM
hey I just finished the 4th page and decided to give my two bits. I live in the US and I have been hearing abiout all that gun control crap. oh yeah we just had a shooting threat at our school but the kid was busted! ( thank goodness). but the main point is about gun controll what will be coming out of it?? If you illegalize guns then there difinatly will be problems. first all the gangs and badguys already have guns. second there was a report in certin parts of florda were they did a servey and asked teh citizens the give up their firearms adn crime went up. then when the guns went back crime went down. why? well, compitition for guns creates violence and that is what happend. look at drugs if we legalized it then drugs would go down to. voilence related to drugs would go down also. why? same reason gangs wouldnt be trying to sell it because it would be cheap and there would be no thrill of selling it. you see? this is solely me opionon and I hope you stick to yours but there is a whole nother side of the issue.

cheers i am going to surf! ( live in California:)

Guest_779
03-31-2001, 12:41 PM
cbrf4zr2,

I will not dignify your posts with a response. However, I will say that, since you’ve admitted to this web site that you’ve only been practicing Aikido for about 6 months now, you seem nonsensical to quarrel certain topics with genuine Aikidokas who’ve been treading this path for ten to twenty some years now. In Budo this is called "The ladle above the kettle". I’m not referring to your stance on the gun issue, that’s obviously a marginal debate in this nation, but on other posts you’ve left. Perhaps you should try to be a little less conniving and little more amicable. This is just my opinion and a friendly suggestion.

cbrf4zr2
04-01-2001, 12:52 AM
Jefferson wrote:

I will not dignify your posts with a response.


I always find that the funniest statement, considering the irony of it. :D
Sort of along the lines of asking someone if they are awake.
And seeing that you took the time, and effort to read through my posts, I take quite an honor in that. Thank you. LOL

Guest_779
04-01-2001, 02:47 PM
Jim23,

That's a cool joke that you left up above. I believe I've read it before, but all the same, I got a kick out of reading it again. Thanks.

Guest_779
04-01-2001, 03:03 PM
cbrf4zr2,

Of course I took the time to read through some of your posts. You've left various interesting ones as well as some devious ones (which I refuse to dignify). Don't feel honored, I've read other people's posts here as well, this is what a forum is all about.

Jim23
04-01-2001, 03:04 PM
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HIGH SCHOOL MATH PROFICIENCY EXAM

1. Little Johnny has an AK 47 with a 30 round clip. He usually misses 6 out of every 10 shots and he uses 13 rounds per drive-by shooting. How many drive-by shootings can Little Johnny attempt before he has to reload?

2. Billy steals Joe's skateboard. As Billy skates away at 35 mph, Joe loads his 357 Magnum. If it takes Joe 20 seconds to load his magnum, how far away will Billy be when he gets whacked?

There is more to this test, however, they aren't "gun related".

Jim23

mj
04-01-2001, 03:59 PM
:D MJ can't post just now, he's rolling around the floor in hysterics

Jim23
04-01-2001, 05:44 PM
MJ,

Here are the rest. Some will find them funny and others might take offence. They crack me up.

THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HIGH SCHOOL MATH PROFICIENCY EXAM

1. Little Johnny has an AK 47 with a 30 round clip. He usually misses 6 out of every 10 shots and he uses 13 rounds per drive-by shooting. How many drive-by shootings can Little Johnny attempt before he has to reload?

2. Jose has 2 ounces of cocaine. If he sells an 8 ball to Antonio for $320 and 2 grams to Juan for $85 per gram, what is the street value of the rest of his hold?

3. Rufus pimps 3 hos. If the price is $85 per trick, how many tricks per day must each ho turn to support Rufus' $800 per day crack habit?

4. Jerome wants to cut the pound of cocaine he bought for $40,000 to make 20% profit. How many ounces will he need?

5. Willie gets $200 for a stolen BMW, $150 for stealing a Corvette, and $100 for a 4x4. If he steals 1 BMW, 2 Corvettes and 3 4x4s, how many more Corvettes must he have to steal to have $900?

6. Raoul got 6 years for murder. He also got $10,000 for the hit. If his common-law wife spends $100 per month, how much money will be left when he gets out?

Extra credit bonus: how much more time will he get for killing the ho that spent his money?

7. If an average can of spray paint covers 22 square feet and the average letter is 3 square feet, how many letters can be sprayed with 3 eight ounce cans of spray paint with 20% paint free?

8. Hector knocked up 3 girls in the gang. There are 27 girls in his gang. What is the exact percentage of girls Hector knocked up?

9. Bernie is a lookout for the gang. Bernie has a Boa Constrictor that eats 3 small rats per week at a cost of $5 per rat. If Bernie makes $700 a week as a lookout, how many weeks can he feed the Boa on one week's income?

10. Billy steals Joe's skateboard. As Billy skates away at 35 mph, Joe loads his 357 Magnum. If it takes Joe 20 seconds to load his magnum, how far away will Billy be when he gets whacked?

Jim23

mj
04-01-2001, 06:04 PM
:D Oh, man, you are killing me...
Do you know how much trouble you're in now with the aikiweb...
'Hit me baby one more TIIIIME'

mj
04-01-2001, 07:04 PM
:D :D If my wife saw these... she'd kill me (you). But I don't get number 9... tripoli...?
ps I wont be back for 17 hours.

Magma
04-02-2001, 08:02 AM
Jefferson,
There is no rank on this message board, so please don't try to enforce it on CBR... especially on an off-topic subject like gun control. What does time on the mats have to do with the right to an opinion and to voice that opinion? Besides, people's perspectives on this issue are formed more by their daily lives than by their aikido training, I think... take me for an example, I have already bathed this morning in the sea that is America's gun culture. How about anyone else? :D

(Just for clarity, I'm not dignifying Jefferson's non-dignifying reply with any sort of dignifying dignification)

j/k, :), had to do that.

chrisinbrasil
04-02-2001, 04:26 PM
Wow Magma,

You sounded indignant!

Guest_779
04-02-2001, 05:59 PM
Magma wrote:

There is no rank on this message board, so please don't try to enforce it on CBR... especially on an off-topic subject like gun control.




How did you conclude this from the post I had left? Are you O.K.? Perhaps you should read someone's post before refuting it in a twisted manner as you've done. Weird. Secondly, if you think Aikido is just " time on the mats", then you're obviously not an Aikidoka; Aikido is an entire way-of-life that includes an ethical\spiritual system that you evidently have no interest in. I suggest you at least read the sacred teachings of O-sensei and the Kototama before you can even grasp a single word I speak.

Good day sir.

Jim23
04-02-2001, 07:27 PM
Jefferson,

Tim's an alright guy, let's not get into one of those argument thingies.

Jim23

cbrf4zr2
04-03-2001, 07:40 AM
...since you’ve admitted to this web site that you’ve only been practicing Aikido for about 6 months now...
Apparantly my opinion doesn't count for anything unless I've been studying an unrelated topic for 20 years. Since we are debating guns on this thread and not Aikido. This is what are you are saying isn't it?

you seem nonsensical to quarrel certain topics with genuine Aikidokas

Being an Aikidoka has NOTHING to do with this topic thread. And the only person I've actually argued with on other threads is Jim23, who (I think) hasn't been studying all that long either, certainly not 10-20 years. Corrrect me if I'm wrong Jim, but that's the impression I got. And I think even Jim and I have an understanding of each other now after some further communication and explanations of some "fuzzy" posts. I went through my other posts, and I fail to see where I went out and argued about Aikido topics, so if you'd like to be a good Sempai and show me where I was arguing strictly about Aikido, please do so, because I don't see it.
...you should try to be a little less conniving and little more amicable. This is just my opinion and a friendly suggestion.

So by amicable you mean entering a message thread 11 pages into it and bitch-slapping someone you've never had any previous conversation with? Because if that's what "genuine Aikidokas" like yourself do - maybe I'll quit now and study with the Gracie's.

I may have strong opinions about non-Aikido manners, and where I have those, I will defend them passionately. As far as strictly Aikido matters go, I'm willing to learn, because I have only been studying for 7 months. I may have something to say, just like everyone else on here, but at least I'll make an effort to get off my horse before delivering that message.

mj
04-03-2001, 12:33 PM
Uh oh... :(
who said this
'One who is
enlightened
to all things
will have no need
to draw his sword rashly'

Let's keep it nice please. And if you look halfway down the first page of this thread, you will all see that it was me that started with the disrespectful tone. Sorry.

cbrf4zr2
04-03-2001, 12:38 PM
MJ

I won't draw my sword...I'll draw my gun. :D

Guest_779
04-03-2001, 12:38 PM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
Being an Aikidoka has NOTHING to do with this topic thread.


I'm sorry, I thought I was at "Aiki Web", not the Jerry Springer show Web". Oh, my.......

How careless of me.

Guest_779
04-03-2001, 12:49 PM
cbrf4zr2,

Obviously I've offended you and I apologize. I have several friends that "own guns" and their entitled to their opinions about it. All I said is that "as an aikidoka I have more important things to admire (than guns) such as the philosophy behind Aikido." That was my own opinion, it wasn't meant to degrade anyone. If you recall, I also complimented you on different posts that you left as well (especially on ki). I'm sorry for upsetting you, let's just drop it and move on.

Peace

Erik
04-03-2001, 02:36 PM
Jim23 wrote:
Jefferson,

Tim's an alright guy, let's not get into one of those argument thingies.

Jim23

You and I as the voice of reason. Scary stuff.

Jefferson wrote:
Magma wrote:
There is no rank on this message board, so please don't try to enforce it on CBR... especially on an off-topic subject like gun control.



How did you conclude this from the post I had left? Are you O.K.? Perhaps you should read someone's post before refuting it in a twisted manner as you've done.

Jefferson, the tone of your post was extremely clear and I took it exactly the same way that Magma did.

The beauty of this board, however cantankerous it can get, is that anyone can voice their opinions regardless of rank. Because of this, we get fairly honest discourse, from a lot of different angles and directions. It's exactly the type of discussion that won't take place if we start worrying about rank and seniority.

For what it's worth, in my experience, it's not unusual for the kohai to be much more insighful that the sempai.

mj
04-03-2001, 04:09 PM
You're a kohai, aren't you? ;)

Jim23
04-03-2001, 04:32 PM
mj wrote:
You're a kohai, aren't you? ;)
Mark,

Stick to your day job. I'M JOKING!! (actually, you were).

Anyway, this is kind of gun related - well, it could be.

---

THE EVOLUTION OF MATHEMATICS TRAINING OVER THE PAST FIFTY YEARS

Teaching Math in 1950:

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1960:

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1970:

A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M". The set "C", the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M." Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" for profits?

Teaching Math in 1980:

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. Her cost of production is $80 and her profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math in 1990:

By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.

Teaching Math in 1996:

By laying off 40% of its loggers, a company improves its stock price from $80 to $100. How much capital gain per share does the CEO make by exercising his stock options at $80? Assume capital gains are no longer taxed, because this encourages investment.

Teaching Math in 1997:

A company outsources all of its loggers. The firm saves on benefits, and when demand for its product is down, the logging work force can easily be cut back. The average logger employed by the company earned $50,000, had three weeks vacation, a nice retirement plan and medical insurance. The contracted logger charges $50 an hour. Was outsourcing a good move?

Teaching Math in 1998:

A laid-off logger with four kids at home and a ridiculous alimony from his first failed marriage comes into the logging company corporate offices and goes postal, mowing down 16 executives and a couple of secretaries, and gets lucky when he nails a politician on the premises collecting his kickback. Was outsourcing the loggers a good move for the company?

Teaching Math in 1999:

A laid-off logger serving time in Folsom for blowing away several people is being trained as a COBOL programmer in order to work on Y2K projects. What is the probability that the automatic cell doors will open on their own as of 00:01, 01/01/00?

Guest_779
04-03-2001, 04:34 PM
Erik wrote:
[QUOTE]Jim23 wrote:
Jefferson, the tone of your post was extremely clear and I took it exactly the same way that Magma did.


I still fail to see how you and Magma concluded that I was attacking his stance on the "gun issue" when I clearly stated my position in my earlier post. This is what I wrote:

Jefferson wrote:
[B]..…… I’m not referring to your stance on the gun issue, that’s obviously a marginal debate in this nation, but on other posts you’ve left.

cbrf4zr2
04-03-2001, 04:39 PM
Jefferson wrote:


How did you conclude this from the post I had left? Are you O.K.? Perhaps you should read someone's post before refuting it in a twisted manner as you've done. Weird. Secondly, if you think Aikido is just " time on the mats", then you're obviously not an Aikidoka; Aikido is an entire way-of-life that includes an ethical\spiritual system that you evidently have no interest in. I suggest you at least read the sacred teachings of O-sensei and the Kototama before you can even grasp a single word I speak.

Good day sir. [/B]


I think this is the post they were talking about. Not the one where you addressed me.

Erik
04-03-2001, 05:42 PM
Jefferson wrote:
I will not dignify your posts with a response. However, I will say that, since you’ve admitted to this web site that you’ve only been practicing Aikido for about 6 months now, you seem nonsensical to quarrel certain topics with genuine Aikidokas who’ve been treading this path for ten to twenty some years now. .

Good day sir.

This was the one that got my attention but the other one too.

[Edited by Erik on April 3, 2001 at 04:47pm]

Erik
04-03-2001, 05:46 PM
mj wrote:
You're a kohai, aren't you? ;)

Euros! :)

mj
04-03-2001, 06:23 PM
As far as I know, euros is the new currency of Europe...
Please kohai, enlighten me...
(Really, I don't know what you mean)
1 £=0.61 Euros

Jim23
04-03-2001, 06:34 PM
Jefferson wrote:
Jim23 wrote:[/i]
Jefferson, the tone of your post was extremely clear and I took it exactly the same way that Magma did.

Where did this come from?

Don't give me credit for something I didn't say.

Jim23

Erik
04-03-2001, 07:46 PM
mj wrote:
As far as I know, euros is the new currency of Europe...
Please kohai, enlighten me...
(Really, I don't know what you mean)
1 £=0.61 Euros

Euros!

From the Merriam Webster dictionary.

Main Entry: euro
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural euros also, euro
Etymology: short for the equivalent of Europe or European in the languages of the European Union
Date: 1981
the basic monetary unit shared by countries of the European Union since 1999

For a bonus round.

Main Entry: eu·ro
Pronunciation: 'yur-(")O
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural euros
Etymology: Adnyamadhanha (Australian aboriginal language of South Australia) yuru

Where are you guys with that money thing anyways? It's been in the works for around 800 years hasn't it or does it just seem that way to this yankee?

PS: Point made!

Erik
04-03-2001, 07:46 PM
Jim23 wrote:
Jefferson wrote:
Jim23 wrote:[/i]
Jefferson, the tone of your post was extremely clear and I took it exactly the same way that Magma did.
[/B]
Where did this come from?

Don't give me credit for something I didn't say.

Jim23

Oops! I think he knew where that one was pointed though.

mj
04-03-2001, 07:51 PM
The Scots don't have euros yet, got your spy plane back yet?

Jim23
04-03-2001, 09:58 PM
Jeff's an alright guy, let's not get into one of those argument thingies - at least not over guns.

Jim23

Erik
04-04-2001, 12:09 AM
mj wrote:
The Scots don't have euros yet, got your spy plane back yet?

My spy planes are all present and accounted for but then I don't actually own any so they are easy to keep track of.

[Edited by Erik on April 3, 2001 at 11:21pm]

Magma
04-04-2001, 08:11 AM
Wow, lose your internet connection for a day and you really miss a lot! Thanks, Erik, Jim, and CBR for standing up for me in my absence, but now that I'm back, let me clear a few things up.

Jefferson wrote:
Erik wrote:
Jefferson, the tone of your post was extremely clear and I took it exactly the same way that Magma did.


I still fail to see how you and Magma concluded that I was attacking his stance on the "gun issue"....

Jefferson, I didn't conclude you were attacking CBR's position on gun control, or on any other topic. What I concluded was that your dismissal of his opinions was based primarily on your knowledge that he's only been training 7 months now. That he would be so "nonsensical" - as you put it - to think that his opinion would matter on this board full of serious aikidoka, why the nerve of that boy! Question, Jefferson: how long does it take someone to become a serious aikidoka? Is there a special ceremony to bestow the title of "serious" on the student?

And how long is it until someone's opinions, no matter how far-fetched or extreme or in opposition to your own, matter on this message board? That one I can answer for you: just as long as it takes them to sign up with a user name and agree to the usage policies. So disagree, you've got a right to your opinion. But don't condescend towards anyone because they have only 6 months or 7 months on the mat.

BTW, *I* disagree with *you* in that I don't think the teachings of O'sensei are in any way sacred. They are the thoughts and philosophy of a very wise, but also very fallible man, just like you or I. They are a path, not exclusive of others, but they are not the path.

Now, simply for the purposes of illustration, I'll rewrite that paragraph taking the same tone you did towards CBR, and then later toward me:
Magma could have written:
I don't know if you are well in the head, perhaps you should see someone about these delusions. The kotodama and all of the teachings of O'sensei are nothing more than texts, and poor ones at that. Perhaps you should open your mind and take ownership of your own path and your own art before you attempt to comprehend my words.

Wow, I like the first paragraph a lot more than that one.

[Edited by Magma on April 4, 2001 at 07:25am]

andrew
04-04-2001, 09:34 AM
It's going into circulation next year. There'll be regional design variations in the notes. The UK is not participating. I think about 13 EC countries are, maybe less. These countries have had a fixed exchange rate with each other for a year or two now to prepare.
andrew



Erik wrote:
mj wrote:
As far as I know, euros is the new currency of Europe...
Please kohai, enlighten me...
(Really, I don't know what you mean)
1 £=0.61 Euros

Euros!

From the Merriam Webster dictionary.

Main Entry: euro
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural euros also, euro
Etymology: short for the equivalent of Europe or European in the languages of the European Union
Date: 1981
the basic monetary unit shared by countries of the European Union since 1999

For a bonus round.

Main Entry: eu·ro
Pronunciation: 'yur-(")O
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural euros
Etymology: Adnyamadhanha (Australian aboriginal language of South Australia) yuru

Where are you guys with that money thing anyways? It's been in the works for around 800 years hasn't it or does it just seem that way to this yankee?

PS: Point made!

cbrf4zr2
04-04-2001, 09:41 AM
We're forgetting something!!!

We've talked about guns, and money on this thread, what about lawyers? W.Z. would be so disappointed!!

Does anyone have a clue what I'm talking about? :cool:

chrisinbrasil
04-04-2001, 01:22 PM
Magma wrote:

Jefferson, I didn't conclude you were attacking CBR's position on gun control, or on any other topic. What I concluded was that your dismissal of his opinions was based primarily on your knowledge that he's only been training 7 months now. That he would be so "nonsensical" - as you put it - to think that his opinion would matter on this board full of serious aikidoka, why the nerve of that boy! Question, Jefferson: how long does it take someone to become a serious aikidoka? Is there a special ceremony to bestow the title of "serious" on the student?

BTW, *I* disagree with *you* in that I don't think the teachings of O'sensei are in any way sacred. They are the thoughts and philosophy of a very wise, but also very fallible man, just like you or I. They are a path, not exclusive of others, but they are not the path.

Now, simply for the purposes of illustration, I'll rewrite that paragraph taking the same tone you did towards CBR, and then later toward me:
Magma could have written:
I don't know if you are well in the head, perhaps you should see someone about these delusions. The kotodama and all of the teachings of O'sensei are nothing more than texts, and poor ones at that. Perhaps you should open your mind and take ownership of your own path and your own art before you attempt to comprehend my words.

Wow, I like the first paragraph a lot more than that one.

[Edited by Magma on April 4, 2001 at 07:25am]

The first paragraph was PC but the second was more deserved. "Sacred Teachings" HAHAHAHA... HAHA..HA...hehe

I´ve just laughed enough for the whole week. :)

Guest_779
04-04-2001, 03:58 PM
mj wrote:
The Scots don't have euros yet, got your spy plane back yet?


*LOL* Now that cracked me up! Can you believe all this hype about the U.S. military’s spy plane? As an American all I can say is that it makes me sick. Looks like King George II (president Bush Jr.) dished out more than he can take. First of all, America is in the wrong for flying over China’s air space and spying on them. Then killing one of China’s pilots, and on top of all that, not apologizing for it. Is this not an aggressive move on America's part? Hmmmm, how would the U.S. feel if China was flying over the Florida Keys and spying? This neo-fascist military-complex government we have now has embarrassed several U.S. citizens in the eyes of the international community.

Guest_779
04-04-2001, 04:08 PM
chrisinbrasil wrote:
[QUOTE]Magma wrote:


blah blah *I* disagree with *you* in that I don't think the teachings blah blah of O'sensei are in any way blah blah sacred. They are the blah blah thoughts and blah blah philosophy of a very wise, but also very blah blah fallible man, just like you or blah blah I. They are blah blah a path, not exclusive blah blah of others, but blah blah they are not the path.





*Yawn*

cbrf4zr2
04-04-2001, 04:14 PM
You know for someone who despises materialism, I was wondering, what are you doing with a computer? Considering the industry is run by materialists.

cbrf4zr2
04-04-2001, 04:16 PM
Magma...what was that term you told me about? Was it "Omega"?

Jim23
04-04-2001, 04:16 PM
cbrf4zr2 wrote:
You know for someone who despises materialism, I was wondering, what are you doing with a computer? Considering the industry is run by materialists.

Ed,

How do you know that he's on a computer?

I'm not.

Jim23

cbrf4zr2
04-04-2001, 04:22 PM
Jim

Uhhhhh...ok...

Hey, with regards to your new signature, I usually don't let women of that stature in my house, nor would I want them upstairs! ;)

Jim23
04-04-2001, 04:38 PM
Ed,

What are you talking about? :D

Now how did I do that to a past post??

Jim23

MarkG
04-04-2001, 04:51 PM
Jefferson wrote:
mj wrote:
The Scots don't have euros yet, got your spy plane back yet?


*LOL* Now that cracked me up! Can you believe all this hype about the U.S. military’s spy plane? As an American all I can say is that it makes me sick. Looks like King George II (president Bush Jr.) dished out more than he can take. First of all, America is in the wrong for flying over China’s air space and spying on them. Then killing one of China’s pilots, and on top of all that, not apologizing for it. Is this not an aggressive move on America's part? Hmmmm, how would the U.S. feel if China was flying over the Florida Keys and spying? This neo-fascist military-complex government we have now has embarrassed several U.S. citizens in the eyes of the international community.


Jefferson,

You should really research a topic before making such a strong statment. Alot of your points simply are not accurate. Of course you could just be fishing for a response, in which case I guess I took the bait.

mj
04-04-2001, 05:05 PM
Jefferson... could we be blood brothers...
MarkG... maybe you should use the 'net to read some non-US material on this subject...hope you like arsenic in your water :)
Ed... what is it with you... you seem, and I don't mean to be offensive, really aggresive in all your posts. Can't you say anything positive? Nice? :eek:

Magma
04-04-2001, 05:29 PM
Jefferson wrote:
chrisinbrasil wrote:
[QUOTE]Magma wrote:


blah blah *I* disagree with *you* in that I don't think the teachings blah blah of O'sensei are in any way blah blah sacred. They are the blah blah thoughts and blah blah philosophy of a very wise, but also very blah blah fallible man, just like you or blah blah I. They are blah blah a path, not exclusive blah blah of others, but blah blah they are not the path.





*Yawn*

Now why did you go and do that, Jefferson? Ridicule would not seem to become an aikidoka, especially one given to living the sacred texts in his every day life (as you say you are called to do), so should I take from this that you are not a serious aikidoka? Whatever you think you are saying, this is the way you are acting, and how you would have people perceive you.

Jefferson, all that I have seen you do since you showed up on this message board is bitch about the discussions taking place. That's what this place is for. If you don't like it, you can take your sacred texts and higher ideals and flat out snobbish-ness and unsign yourself as easily as you signed up.

But until you show respect to your fellow posters (myself included - *thanks*, BTW, for taking the time and effort to "blah blah"-icize my post, that shows real class), until you start considering that others hold their opinions as seriously as you do yours, you are a detriment to this message board, to the aikido community at large.

Why am I trying so hard? Until you seriously apply your aikido to your everyday life, including what you do online, you won't understand "my words."

Oooch... that was a bit off-sides, wasn't it? Sorry for that last one there.

Oh, and BTW, the forum rule is to sign all posts with your real name... or are you choosing to ignore that discussion board protocol as well?

mj
04-04-2001, 05:38 PM
Magma... ahem, quite a few 'quotes' in that...
If someone didn't have 'strong' beliefs, they wouldn't really be worth talking to... there isn't really right and wrong, after all, when it involves opinions. Ps, Dave says 'Bollocks, my opinion is always right'. Followed by 'I've got to remember to shut my mouth in case you post these things'. A good person is a good person. Who's bad? (What?)

Magma
04-04-2001, 05:53 PM
MJ, don't get me wrong, opinions are great things. Everybody has them. That is what gives this message board its life. Of course, what kills it is the outright dismissal and condescension exhibited towards another person's opinions/posts.

It just comes down to a lack of respect.

akiy
04-04-2001, 06:18 PM
Magma wrote:
MJ, don't get me wrong, opinions are great things. Everybody has them. That is what gives this message board its life. Of course, what kills it is the outright dismissal and condescension exhibited towards another person's opinions/posts.

It just comes down to a lack of respect.
... and hence, the first rule in the Forum Rules section that gets shown every time someone posts here:

Treat your fellow AikiWeb Forums members with respect.

-- Jun

Jim23
04-05-2001, 06:21 PM
Where is everyone? This place is like a ghost town.

Jim23

NYFE Man
04-06-2001, 07:59 AM
Jim23 wrote:
Where is everyone? This place is like a ghost town.

Jim23

Oh...sorry Jim23...um...*getting notes together*... a-HEM:

Guns are bad, people are worse, USA is home to gun nuts and militaristic whack-jobs!

There -- that should get things started again! :)

(By the way -- for those of you new to this thread, this post was brought to you by sarcasm. Sarcasm, available in the 50 lb. bag at your local grocer. Ask for it by name!) :D

Magma
04-06-2001, 09:44 AM
"People new to this thread"?

I would like to know a person that actually spent the time to read every one of the posts on all 15 pages before deciding to add their 2 cents. This thing is like a gorilla. Most people probably just walk on by its cage exclaiming, "Wow, that's a big gorilla... oh well, where's my beer and peanuts?"

ian
04-06-2001, 11:09 AM
I agree, in fact I only read your thread (well, I read the ones at the start ages ago). Often these discussions change direction so much that its hard to keep track of who you should really be replying to, and if you do, whether anyone will have a clue to what you are reffering to. Maybe I could suggest a new thread when the subject changes? (also keeps it nice and neat if new people ever want to look back into the past to see what people thought about a particular subject).

Ian

lyam
04-06-2001, 12:03 PM
wow, 212 responses!

maybe if i asked about gun control people would respond to my original question in this thread.. he he.

wow, 213 responses!

mj
04-06-2001, 12:33 PM
I Rifled through the posts, thought I should give it a Shot, but some of them weren't really up to Calibre. Anyway, I started to run out of Ammo for my arguments. God... I'm bored.