It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

page: 17
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski
aww look, all the gun nuts are patting each other on the back.

It's just like a likkle club.

Well done you.

And the little sheep will continue to be food for wolves.




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski
aww look, all the gun nuts are patting each other on the back.

It's just like a likkle club.

Well done you.


So now we are gun "nuts"?

I have given you a very specific reason for my owning guns and it is far from a "nut" reason. People like you are the reason that people like me end up losing rights and I am VERY happy you are not in my country.

Try sticking to policies in your own country where they might care to take away more of your rights.

Ignorance abounds with this OP.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
A friendly reminder...

Please stick to the topic at hand and kindly refrain from thowing poisonous darts at one another. From this point forward, personal attacks of any kind will not be condoned.

Consider this fair warning.

Carry on.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski
aww look, all the gun nuts are patting each other on the back.

It's just like a likkle club.

Well done you.


So now we are gun "nuts"?

I have given you a very specific reason for my owning guns and it is far from a "nut" reason. People like you are the reason that people like me end up losing rights and I am VERY happy you are not in my country.

Try sticking to policies in your own country where they might care to take away more of your rights.

Ignorance abounds with this OP.


I'm just yanking your chain, although you have to admit the way you guys all star each other is pretty sad.
Anyone would think they meant something.

And now I am not allowed to comment on anything except my own country.

I tell you what, you bring all your troops home, close all your overseas bases, stop invading countries and stealing their resources, stop exporting crap amerikana, and I'll keep my nose out of your business.
edit on 12/2/2015 by budski because: spelling error/ typo.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

Some things society needs, some things some people just want.



I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.


I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.

Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?

You monster.


The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.

There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.

As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!


There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.

So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???


You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?

Have a word with yourself.

Nah, I'll have another word with you.



There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski
aww look, all the gun nuts are patting each other on the back.

It's just like a likkle club.

Well done you.


I don't think you understand that the us violence would happen regardless of guns or not. Does it really matter how some one dies. What a distracting debate. The problem in the us is upward mobility for the poor. Statistically nearly all violence in the US is associated with poverty and gangs. The other deaths fall within the margins of normal (statistically speaking) societal sociopathic behavior.

The point of the US law abiding gun owners is that not only the bad guys have guns. Not only the government has guns.

Switzerland and Canada have more guns per person than the US.

Switzerland has more "assault rifles" than the US per family by a large margin. In fact nearly 100 percent of adults have a semi auto rifle in Switzerland where is all their crime?

People its a cultural problem. Obviously one we aren't willing to address so we talk about banning guns. Banning guns in the US would only take away the guns from the good guys. The rest of the thugs and desperate would be at a huge advantage. Unlike Europe in the US you actually have a chance to defend your self (and by all law enforcement statistics 1 million people do).

If you aren't from the US you don't realize we are not a unified culture like Europe. Its a highly populated diverse belief system with dense population of uneducated poverty. The solution is to elevate the people trapped within the poverty and provide a pathway other than gangs. Banning guns would only make things worse here in the US.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

Some things society needs, some things some people just want.



I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.


I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.

Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?

You monster.


The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.

There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.

As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!


There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.

So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???


You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?

Have a word with yourself.

Nah, I'll have another word with you.



There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.


Nope, I stand by what I said.

We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.

We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.

We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski
aww look, all the gun nuts are patting each other on the back.

It's just like a likkle club.

Well done you.


So now we are gun "nuts"?

I have given you a very specific reason for my owning guns and it is far from a "nut" reason. People like you are the reason that people like me end up losing rights and I am VERY happy you are not in my country.

Try sticking to policies in your own country where they might care to take away more of your rights.

Ignorance abounds with this OP.


I'm just yanking your chain, although you have to admit the way you guys all star each other is pretty sad.
Anyone would think they meant something.

And now I am not allowed to comment on anything except my own country.

I tell you what, you bring all your troops home, close all your overseas bases, stop invading countries and stealing their resources, stop exporting crap amerikana, and I'll keep my nose out of your business.


I have nothing to do with troops being anywhere and never have stuck my nose in any other country's business. I couldn't care less about your country's policies or anything that is going on there.....doesn't affect me or my family one single bit.

I would suggest you take up your issues with your own country instead of blaming someone else's for all their problems.

You can comment on whatever country you'd like, but unless you are in that country and know what it is you are speaking of, the point is hard to be made.

In this case, the point you were trying to make is that more guns = more violence/death....you were shown to be incorrect. It does not equal more, it equals less according to ALL stats unless a subset of those stats is used in which case there will be a corresponding value, such as gun ownership in gangs = more violence/death in gangs.

Stated as such in the OP, it simply is not true at all.

I would love to bring all our troops home and close up shop in every country....it would be interesting to see how long those countries were still around after 10 years and not war-torn and battered from attempted takeovers.
edit on 2/12/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

Some things society needs, some things some people just want.



I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.


I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.

Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?

You monster.


The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.

There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.

As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!


There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.

So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???


You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?

Have a word with yourself.

Nah, I'll have another word with you.



There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.


Nope, I stand by what I said.

We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.

We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.

We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.

There you go again.
Why didn't you say all that in the first place instead what you originally said?
I apologize in advance if English is not your first language.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

Some things society needs, some things some people just want.



I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.


I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.

Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?

You monster.


The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.

There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.

As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!


There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.

So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???


You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?

Have a word with yourself.

Nah, I'll have another word with you.



There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.


Nope, I stand by what I said.

We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.

We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.

We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.


I agree with what you are saying. The only problem is what happens in reality and constantly throughout history is the big advanced bullies will conquer you if you can't defend yourself. So the arms race starts out as a defense and just keeps going with each side advancing weapons at a steady pace. When one gets superior is when the bad stuff happens. As sad as it is the arms race is what keeps people in check. If the us and Europe stopped building guns you would be conquered and forced into a different lifestyle or worse.

Unfortunately we can't evolve past this primitive way of thinking. But its the thinking part not the guns that has to change. Change the thought and the guns will be benign like they are in cultures like switzerland.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

Some things society needs, some things some people just want.



I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.


I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.

Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?

You monster.


The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.

There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.

As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!


There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.

So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???


You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?

Have a word with yourself.

Nah, I'll have another word with you.



There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.


Nope, I stand by what I said.

We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.

We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.

We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.


Where is the "We" in your post coming from. Your OP is based on the US. As far as I can tell, you are not "We".

You speak of NASA as if it is based out of your country....it isn't. You speak of the moon landing as if it had anything to do with your country.....it didn't.

So if we take away ALL the things the WE did, there wouldn't be much left for YOU to talk about would there?

Why the interest in US gun debates if you are not even in the US? I am here. I know the rules and what is actually going on in the US. I follow them. I own guns, and I own them for a reason.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski

Nope, I stand by what I said.

We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.

We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.

We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.


So now we're on to defense budgets? I agree that if the world's national powers had put forth as much effort and funding to the worlds space programs as had put into war, man might be out of the solar system by now.

But that's not what happened unfortunately.

That is the only thing we will agree on in this thread.
edit on 2/12/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ...

Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”

― Vladimir Ilich Lenin




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

Some things society needs, some things some people just want.



I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.


I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.

Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?

You monster.


The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.

There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.

As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!


There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.

So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???


You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?

Have a word with yourself.

Nah, I'll have another word with you.



There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.


Nope, I stand by what I said.

We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.

We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.

We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.


I agree with what you are saying. The only problem is what happens in reality and constantly throughout history is the big advanced bullies will conquer you if you can't defend yourself. So the arms race starts out as a defense and just keeps going with each side advancing weapons at a steady pace. When one gets superior is when the bad stuff happens. As sad as it is the arms race is what keeps people in check. If the us and Europe stopped building guns you would be conquered and forced into a different lifestyle or worse.

Unfortunately we can't evolve past this primitive way of thinking. But its the thinking part not the guns that has to change. Change the thought and the guns will be benign like they are in cultures like switzerland.


I disagree.
A major part of the problem is that people accept what is, rather than looking for and creating alternatives.
Another major part of the problem is that we have been conditioned to compete with each other rather than work together, and so many people just accept this.

We (humans) think people wanting to put themselves above others is normal.
It's not, unless that person suffers from a psychiatric condition.

We now have a world where resource wars are the norm, and all because a small number of people think they know better, can do better or are just plain greedy, but even these problems are largely a result of conditioning.

A move towards a resource based society )planetary) would be a start.
We have the technology to start it.

Over time, divisive crap like made up gods, war and the ridiculous notion of reward by money for giving up your time to do a pointless job that doesn't benefit society would disappear.

I know it's idealistic, and I won't see it in my lifetime, but it will happen eventually unless humans continue to let others think for them and destroy themselves.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

Some things society needs, some things some people just want.



I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.


I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.

Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?

You monster.


The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.

There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.

As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!


There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.

So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???


You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?

Have a word with yourself.

Nah, I'll have another word with you.



There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.


Nope, I stand by what I said.

We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.

We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.

We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.


Where is the "We" in your post coming from. Your OP is based on the US. As far as I can tell, you are not "We".

You speak of NASA as if it is based out of your country....it isn't. You speak of the moon landing as if it had anything to do with your country.....it didn't.

So if we take away ALL the things the WE did, there wouldn't be much left for YOU to talk about would there?

Why the interest in US gun debates if you are not even in the US? I am here. I know the rules and what is actually going on in the US. I follow them. I own guns, and I own them for a reason.


"We"

As in We Humans.

Are you saying you're not a human?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I see this as another circular argument based out of context.

If you have a jar of pickles the content is pickles but the context is the jar. You can't have a discussion around banning guns in the context of the US because it is a completely different context from the basic argument about gun hazard and what statistics they are part of. We chose to make ownership a right in this country and that train has left the station. Any argument at this point about banning for an American starts to cut deeper than just doing without guns. It starts to infringe on the sensibilities handed down from those who had an idea about tyrants, kings, despots and what responsible citizenry should look like. It doesn't mean we haven't dropped the ball on tyranny. We have. It doesn't mean guns aren't dangerous. They are when in the wrong hands. It means we have made a choice that many don't agree with. I get it. But at the end of the day...tough #. Nothing is going to change that. It has nothing to do with fear but more about responsibility and capability to defend.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: howmuch4another
I see this as another circular argument based out of context.

If you have a jar of pickles the content is pickles but the context is the jar. You can't have a discussion around banning guns in the context of the US because it is a completely different context from the basic argument about gun hazard and what statistics they are part of. We chose to make ownership a right in this country and that train has left the station. Any argument at this point about banning for an American starts to cut deeper than just doing without guns. It starts to infringe on the sensibilities handed down from those who had an idea about tyrants, kings, despots and what responsible citizenry should look like. It doesn't mean we haven't dropped the ball on tyranny. We have. It doesn't mean guns aren't dangerous. They are when in the wrong hands. It means we have made a choice that many don't agree with. I get it. But at the end of the day...tough #. Nothing is going to change that. It has nothing to do with fear but more about responsibility and capability to defend.


Tyrants, kings and despots?

It was about not wanting to pay tax, full stop.
How'd that work out for you guys?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski
This is another issue.
People have this very funny perception of the military standing up for their rights.
The military follow orders and the orders come indirectly from their corporate paymasters.

You might have been right about this when the revolution occurred, but it's no longer the case I'm afraid.


You really don't have a clue. Corporate paymasters..................that's a good one.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: budski

Some things society needs, some things some people just want.



I'm sure the citizens of Poland needed some firearms in 1939.


I'm sure that if guns hadn't been invented in the first place the people of Poland would have been OK.
So now you're advocating against scientific advancement in order to keep people safe. I guess all those asteroid detecting telescopes are out the window too, since they're a direct result of man's discovery of gunpowder, which begat propulsion, which begat rockets, which birthed the space program, which eventually launched these potentially humanity-saving devices into space.

Or do you WANT us all to die in a horrific meteoric holocaust?

You monster.


The original use of gunpowder was for fireworks.
They didn't have the chemistry in the earliest forms of gunpowder to make it viable for firing projectiles. That came later.
It says a lot that a quick burning chemical compound (which is what it originally was) has been co-opted by the inventors of guns.

There's also the fact that chemical rockets are hugely inefficient, and that alternative ways of getting into space have been ignored as man focuses on more efficient ways to kill each other.

As you lot are so fond of saying: FAIL.
You have inside knowledge of a method of orbital insertion that's more efficient than chemical rockets?! Why are you here talking about guns when you should be at NASA or the ESA as head of development on this new, revolutionary, and more efficient rocket design! Go, man! Save humanity!


There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You know it, I know it, but being facetious makes you feel clever.
I'm pleased for you.
Carry on.

So, you suppose that NO scientific endeavors are going on or have been going on to find an alternative to chemical rockets?
Who is being facetious here???


You are.
Are you trying to tell me that those same scientific endeavours would not be more advanced if the US had not spent hundreds of billions on procurement for a new plane that barely works?

Have a word with yourself.

Nah, I'll have another word with you.



There are many alternatives that we could have been actively pursuing were it not for the obsession with weapons.

You say we could have been. As if we haven't been actively pursuing them..... just because of an obsession with weapons. You wrote it...
Now if you wanted to say something else in the first place.... you should have said it.


Nope, I stand by what I said.

We could have been using the trillions spent on instruments of war.
We haven't.
Instead, the NASA budget got cut year on year on year.

We could have engineered an orbital factory to make ships to go to other planets and explore the solar system
Sadly, we didn't because the moon shot was just cold war PR about beating the Soviets.

We could have listened to people like Carl Sagan.
Instead, we built more weapons of destruction.


I agree with what you are saying. The only problem is what happens in reality and constantly throughout history is the big advanced bullies will conquer you if you can't defend yourself. So the arms race starts out as a defense and just keeps going with each side advancing weapons at a steady pace. When one gets superior is when the bad stuff happens. As sad as it is the arms race is what keeps people in check. If the us and Europe stopped building guns you would be conquered and forced into a different lifestyle or worse.

Unfortunately we can't evolve past this primitive way of thinking. But its the thinking part not the guns that has to change. Change the thought and the guns will be benign like they are in cultures like switzerland.




We (humans) think people wanting to put themselves above others is normal.
It's not, unless that person suffers from a psychiatric condition.



Huh? This happens in the WHOLE of the animal kingdom. Hence the term "alpha". There always has to be a leader. It is VERY natural and instinctive. There is no psychiatric condition associated with that at all. The weak die, the strong survive in all aspects of life. It is for a reason....so that species is able to continue.

What you are speaking of would actually go against ALL scientific proof of how animals in groups behave. There is a pecking order, and when you challenge that pecking order you either win or you are put in your place, sometimes killed.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: budski

'sigh'

Our constitution, bill of rights and what we wanted a country to look like is the context of that statement. Your comment was about the revolt.

again you fail to understand context.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join