To the point!
Guns, pros and cons!
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
To the point!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Knives, Guns, Cars or Penis?
I'm going for the gun, any spree killer will tell you while that clown is stabing someone and getting all bloody, I can shoot five or six and stay perfictly clean.
Cars are tuff too, those folks, they keep moving and bust the windshield!
Now Penis killers, that is really messy................
Naw, I'm going with the gun!
I'm going for the gun, any spree killer will tell you while that clown is stabing someone and getting all bloody, I can shoot five or six and stay perfictly clean.
Cars are tuff too, those folks, they keep moving and bust the windshield!
Now Penis killers, that is really messy................
Naw, I'm going with the gun!
People with STDs will probably have something to say about that!
Smack on, Pete! It's amazing that only "conservatives" can see the absurdity of fear and paranoia directed at inanimate objects...fear and paranoia of people we can understand! 
Yes Jim, it IS absurd to be paranoid of an inanimate object...to invest that much energy and emotion into a visceral reaction...to insist, repeatedly, adamantly that an inanimate object is evil...to give up your own power of rational thought and self-control, while feeding this un-natural fear and paranoia.
No matter how many times you say something, it does not make it true. GUNS do NOT kill people...PEOPLE kill people.
Bacteria and viruses have killed more people at any time in history as a whole, than has ever been killed by other people, using guns, bombs, knives and poison or any other means of violence. Why no rampant paranoia and phobia for germs? A person can just as easily use germs to kill other people as guns...germs are after all, EVERYWHERE.
Sigmund Freud said that a fear of weapons is a result of a lack of sexual development. Oddly enough, this is one of the few remaining Freudian rules that psychiatrists still agree with...
Who knows better Jim? You...or millions of psychiatric professionals?
No matter how many times you say something, it does not make it true. GUNS do NOT kill people...PEOPLE kill people.
Bacteria and viruses have killed more people at any time in history as a whole, than has ever been killed by other people, using guns, bombs, knives and poison or any other means of violence. Why no rampant paranoia and phobia for germs? A person can just as easily use germs to kill other people as guns...germs are after all, EVERYWHERE.
Sigmund Freud said that a fear of weapons is a result of a lack of sexual development. Oddly enough, this is one of the few remaining Freudian rules that psychiatrists still agree with...
Who knows better Jim? You...or millions of psychiatric professionals?
John, are you sure the above is correct.
Maybe Jim does no better than a lot of psychiatric professionals. I don't know one way or another but the below seems very plausible to me.
I know you like dig deep into both sides of the story so here is the other side, in case you hadn't seen it.
"Lots of Freud scholars have suggested that fear of weapons is a sign of sexual and emotional retardation.
In reality, this is a lie perpetrated by Don Kates, Jr.–who is neither a Freud scholar or particularly honest."
From Wiki:
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
This is not is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud’s works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay “Guns, Murders, and the Constitution” (February 1990) by Don B. Kates, Jr. where Kates summarizes his views of passages in Dreams in Folklore (1958) by Freud and David E. Oppenheim
As I'm not the first to attribute the quote to Freud, I can't take full responsibility for it's origins, only it's usage in this context.
I don't trust Wiki as an unimpeachable source, based on it's open-source content and less-than-strenuous use of verifiable & non-biased references.
I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong in regards to this phrase's use, so long as you can prove that the phrase is indeed not belonging to Freud.
In this case however, I'm almost certain that the quote fits perfectly...
I don't trust Wiki as an unimpeachable source, based on it's open-source content and less-than-strenuous use of verifiable & non-biased references.
I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong in regards to this phrase's use, so long as you can prove that the phrase is indeed not belonging to Freud.
In this case however, I'm almost certain that the quote fits perfectly...
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
John,
You are paranoid about the goverment. Is that irrational?
If you could cure bacteria and viruses that kill people would you?
I'm not really sure about you concervatives. Guns and sex seem to come out in one though...............................
Trying to make up for a short comming?
You are paranoid about the goverment. Is that irrational?
If you could cure bacteria and viruses that kill people would you?
I'm not really sure about you concervatives. Guns and sex seem to come out in one though...............................
Trying to make up for a short comming?
The first source was not from Wiki
As someone cleverer than me pointed out although not in these words, but you will get the gist.
"Actually, you can never prove that kind of a negative about most false attributions. You could claim that John Roark heaped praise on the Liberals, and was in fact said he was a rampant closet Liberal himself, and it would be impossible to prove that it was never said."
Last edited:
John,
You are paranoid about the goverment. Is that irrational?
I work for the government, that's why I don't believe in conspiracies...I know they could never exist as it currently works. That doesn't mean that I am a brain-washed, policy-sucking sycophant who believes in the benign intent of our government either. I fail to see any irrational bent to my thinking...though I could be deluding myself...
If you could cure bacteria and viruses that kill people would you?
You're looking at the question backward. Should I find a cure? Or should I treat people who become infected?
I'm not really sure about you concervatives. Guns and sex seem to come out in one though...............................
Being as those traits are ascribed by liberals, not conservatives, it seems that libs have the confusion. I know the difference between my cock and my rifle...and I'm not afraid of either one
Trying to make up for a short comming?
Maybe the confusion for the libs is whether that one "experiment" in college really should have them playing for the other team...that can cause quite alot of internal conflict if left unresolved. One could also guess that anxiety from premature release would leave them questioning their ability to handle firearms as well...after all, if you can't conrol your own internal trigger...
Are you denying the existence of germs and viruses, or their ubiquitous dispersion throughout the world?
Have you ever had a case of food poisoning? The flu? The common cold? Staph infection? Gonorrhea? If you haven't, count yourself lucky. If not, you proved my point for me...
Actually, this example CAN be proven false. First, provide YOUR definition of liberal. Then, poll my friends, family & co-workers. Finally, ask me. If you are willing to take my responses on this forum at face value, then you have no reason not to take this response at face value. I am, in point and fact, not a closet liberal. Nor have I ever heaped praise on liberals.
Also, in point and fact, liberals have perverted the meaning of the word, which by their own doing, forces me into the conservative camp by default. Otherwise liberals would be called fascist, disingenuous, self-serving, money-grubbing, power-grabbing bastards.
John,
I don't care what they say about you I think your great.
OK I should not have been a smart arse, here is the original
"Someone feels entitled to call the Freud quote about guns "attributed" unless it can be proven that Freud never said it. Actually, you can never prove that kind of a negative about most false attributions. You could claim that Churchill heaped praise on the Nazis and it would be impossible to prove that it was never said."
Well that does it! I'm arming myself and my entire family starting right now! I am going out and buying myself a test tube full of bacteria. That'll show those darn crooks that try to steal MY wallet!:laugh:
Sorry John, but I doubt anyone will consider a raw chicken breast their weapon of choice. (By the way - I had salmonella and I know it can be deadly, but let's be real here.)
Sorry John, but I doubt anyone will consider a raw chicken breast their weapon of choice. (By the way - I had salmonella and I know it can be deadly, but let's be real here.)
Yes, granted this isn't as good as a quick kill, but it would have the same effect. My point was to show the absurdity of fear of a tool, as other objects are just as capable of inflicting the same result.
Might I suggest a vial of acid instead?
No. Ecologically speaking, as well as biologically speaking, they serve a role in the natural order of things. I'm not going to play god, as the law of unintended consequences is apt to prove worse in the end than any short-term gain.
Would I like to find a cure to prevent/eliminate HUMAN infliction of germs and viruses? Perhaps. Has naught to do with the financial aspect either. Viruses and bacteria both mutate at an alarming rate, so it's a never-ending expansion of research & development to keep up, in a world with finite resources and limited conversion rate of those resources.
The world would be a better place for all if responsible action in regards to transmitting these bugs were in place. From AIDS, TB, flu, common cold, hepatitis A, B & C, herpes simplex I & II, genital warts, gonorrhea, syphillis, chlamydia, meningitis, staph including MERS, strep, ad infinitum in the civilian world, to containment of anthrax, ebola, smallpox, polio, malaria, etc in the governmental world.
So long as we are a vector for transmission, our behavior is culpable. Imagine that...human sickness is comparable to gun use!!! :shocked:
