• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 
Main Menu

Guns

Started by Caruthers612, July 01, 2010, 11:34:40 PM

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Jackpine Savage on June 11, 2013, 11:05:09 AM
In other words, you don't have it, so no one else should be allowed to either. I see. Don't be envious, just petition NHS to give you that addadicktamy you've always craved.


Black/White... Aggressive good..Non aggressive bad. The gospel according to Saint Jackpine.


Quote from: Jackpine Savage on June 11, 2013, 11:07:45 AM
Wow, nothing gets past you. It's really funny hearing a woman complain about aggressive men. If women don't like aggressive men, than maybe they should stop lusting after them during their ovulation. I know, biology isn't convenient, is it?


Ahh that's what it boils down to, blowing your chest out being Tarzan?! You delude yourself that the knuckle dragger will always win fair maiden; because lets face it women love being on the wrong side of the knuckle dragger. Prisons have loads of knuckle draggers who found that the women didn't want the knuckle dragger; after they've ovulated presumably? 

From the link:

Ahhh this is what the women chucking themselves at the aggressive man have to consider...

Quote
Dominant men who derive pleasure from being aggressive deliver scant relationship benefits because they pose a threat to the family, show decreased parental investment, and have affairs. Consequently, and as expected, the women in this study preferred less aggressive men for long-term relationships.

Not such a good catch after all...maybe.

onan

Quote from: Jackpine Savage on June 11, 2013, 11:00:56 AM
Are defensive linemen allowed to be aggressive? Lots of manifestations of aggression are not bad and not harmful. Don't become a bed-wetter like puddin' pop here. Aggression gets shit done.

And males are hard-wired to be more aggressive than women, so why are you pathologizing men?


You don't understand the terms you are using. Aggression is behavior that is hostile and forceful. Both of which are harmful. Perhaps you are meaning assertion which is standing your ground.

The problem with violence, aggression. and hostility is that without the rules of a football game those behaviors can easily get out of control and someone gets hurt or dead.


As to males being hard wired for aggression is fairly sophomoric. We are hard wired to eat, breath, shit, and make more of the same. But we do much more than that mostly due to enculturation. I wonder what you would think of this aggression if your child were the one being aggressed with no recourse.


And lastly more stuff gets done without aggression than with.

I guess it comes down to hair splitting on what exactly constitutes "aggression".

I see drive, motivation, and risk taking as positive manifestations of aggression. "Embarked on an aggressive space program..."

And impetuousness, irrational violence, etc. as a negative manifestation.

A holistic approach is best, rather than this puritannical approach of declaring whole swaths of our biology invalid since we find them inconvenient for reasons of social expediency. 

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 11, 2013, 11:23:55 AM



Not such a good catch after all...maybe.

Evolution don't care. Fit is fit. Millions of nubile young women with ovaries filled to brimming with healthy viable eggs apparently disagree with you. Actions speak louder...

What this really means is after a women's eggs have degraded, and she is less viable, she uses her remaining sexuality to try to net her a long term insurance policy.

onan

Quote from: Jackpine Savage on June 11, 2013, 11:07:45 AM
I know, biology isn't convenient, is it?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men


First off, I am not a PhD psychologist. I did read her blog. And as she stated "generally" her essay is interesting and states what seems to be the obvious. But her blog has little to do with biology and her conclusions are hard to quantify because she doesn't give the source. She does make it seem like women are biologically driven to be dishonest manipulators. What the essay sweeps by is the romanticization of mate selection... from three stories... which is so much like real life its laughable. Then she suggests it is biology.


What makes it even funnier is then someone with little understanding of biology, psychology and mate selection would think this is docturnal literature rather than a blog.


To be honest there has and is ongoing research into sexual behavior. And there has been observational studies of bird behavior and mate selection. But humans are too varied, with too many cultures, and too many environments to make a simple "women like the bad guys" statement. Anecdotal stories by rejected men carry a lot of weight with other rejected men and most of us men have been rejected.


I could go on and bore you with several anthropological studies that refute Venita Mehda but I don't care to derail this thread about guns further from the tracks that it already is.

onan

Quote from: Jackpine Savage on June 11, 2013, 12:30:08 PM
I guess it comes down to hair splitting on what exactly constitutes "aggression".

I see drive, motivation, and risk taking as positive manifestations of aggression. "Embarked on an aggressive space program..."

And impetuousness, irrational violence, etc. as a negative manifestation.

A holistic approach is best, rather than this puritannical approach of declaring whole swaths of our biology invalid since we find them inconvenient for reasons of social expediency.


I agree with you here... I often use the phrase "we need an aggressive approach for treatment". But that is symbolic, I still agree with you.


This segue started with the idea that gun owners are more aggressive than non-gun owners. I read that study. Or at least I read the cliff notes on it. Simply put gun owners are more reactive to a perceived threat than a non-gun owner. Well, that is kind of self evident, isn't it? I mean one generally buys a gun for sport OR for self defense. That alone explains a more aggressive stance and yet it means little upon examination.


Quote from: onan on June 11, 2013, 01:00:07 PM

I agree with you here... I often use the phrase "we need an aggressive approach for treatment". But that is symbolic, I still agree with you.


This segue started with the idea that gun owners are more aggressive than non-gun owners. I read that study. Or at least I read the cliff notes on it. Simply put gun owners are more reactive to a perceived threat than a non-gun owner. Well, that is kind of self evident, isn't it? I mean one generally buys a gun for sport OR for self defense. That alone explains a more aggressive stance and yet it means little upon examination.

Well, yes. My only point was that the higher "aggressiveness" was neither good, nor bad. The implication made is that it is bad, but the very opposite may also be true. In fact, I've been arguing it is, as I say they serve as a powerful deterrent to the selfish whims of the rich and powerful.

Quote from: onan on June 11, 2013, 12:40:21 PM


What makes it even funnier is then someone with little understanding of biology, psychology and mate selection would think this is docturnal literature rather than a blog.


To be honest there has and is ongoing research into sexual behavior. And there has been observational studies of bird behavior and mate selection. But humans are too varied, with too many cultures, and too many environments to make a simple "women like the bad guys" statement. Anecdotal stories by rejected men carry a lot of weight with other rejected men and most of us men have been rejected.


Her article is hardly the final word, there are many others who agree with her. Women, ESPECIALLY young fertile women, are generally more sexually attracted to aggressive, cocky males.

Also, my experience with women agrees with her thesis. There are times to soften up, but an aloof cocky aggressive approach gives better results.

Sardondi

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 11, 2013, 02:37:27 AM...The point being aggression isn't always the way forward.
Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on June 11, 2013, 03:00:52 AM
But passive-aggression is, right?
Quote from: onan on June 11, 2013, 04:52:51 AMYour response is much more passive aggressive than York's...
..not to mention funnier, too.

Guys, those of you arguing about aggression = gun love are simply proving the hell out of the assertion of pro-gunners that anti-gunners assume such a position of superior morality and spiritual purity that it's highly offensive to them. That anti-gun self-righteousness is certainly counterproductive and does nothing but tend to prove the pro-gunners' fears that antis are motivated by arrogance and a desire to control the behavior of others. Seriously, move away form the page, come back in awhile and read your responses. Better yet, when you read them, subvert the positions so that your responses may be understood to have been written by pro-gunners. I guarantee you'll feel insulted.

But then perhaps you already knew that's how it sounded. And if you did, I've got nothing to say to you, because you're just an asshole. But I hope not.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Sardondi on June 11, 2013, 03:20:41 PM
..not to mention funnier, too.

Guys, those of you arguing about aggression = gun love are simply proving the hell out of the assertion of pro-gunners that anti-gunners assume such a position of superior morality and spiritual purity that it's highly offensive to them.

Although I only quoted another comment (posted on the previous page) and it stated that studies have shown that gun owners are generally more aggressive I decided to have a looksie. With not too much looking found this. I can't vouch for the web site but it does link to the original sources. Presumably the original sources can be validated or not; It might be unfortunate if the concept offends, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

A couple of paragraphs state:

Quote


Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
and..

Quote
In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

and...
Quote
Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
Because that's what schoolboys do. Now 66% didn't...however it will ruin someones day if one of the 33% has a round in the spout when the trigger is pulled and it's aimed at them..I don't know about anyone else, but I cannot imagine that scenario with one of my loved ones.

Quote

That anti-gun self-righteousness is certainly counterproductive and does nothing but tend to prove the pro-gunners' fears that antis are motivated by arrogance and a desire to control the behavior of others. Seriously, move away form the page, come back in awhile and read your responses. Better yet, when you read them, subvert the positions so that your responses may be understood to have been written by pro-gunners. I guarantee you'll feel insulted.

But then perhaps you already knew that's how it sounded. And if you did, I've got nothing to say to you, because you're just an asshole. But I hope not.


Yep...be insulted or be an asshole!!! I don't like olives, therefore I must like tomatoes. Catch you later.


Sardondi

Grandmother blasts away with .357 to save self and wheelchair-bound WWII-vet husband from midnight home invader. Note she called 911 first, but police weren't there as the intruder was entering the house. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/12/grandma-72-shoots-at-intruder-misses-in-calif/

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Sardondi on June 12, 2013, 09:59:50 AM
Grandmother blasts away with .357 to save self and wheelchair-bound WWII-vet husband from midnight home invader. Note she called 911 first, but police weren't there as the intruder was entering the house. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/12/grandma-72-shoots-at-intruder-misses-in-calif/


I suppose in a perverse way that cancels out the incidents of 'accidental' ND's and campus shootings. Oh, hang on, no it doesn't. 


Quote from: onan on June 11, 2013, 04:52:51 AM

Your response is much more passive aggressive than York's.


I am so sick of the aggression is "ok" argument. Self defense is not aggression. The minute defense becomes aggressive it becomes illegal. Don't believe me? use your weapon outside of defense and see where your ass lands.


Secondly we have a social contract that is specifically in place to avoid aggression. Otherwise society would always be the biggest guy with the biggest club would rule and others would live in fear.


There is something pathologically wrong believing aggression is an appropriate response in any civil setting. Including sports but that is another discussion.

Not really.  Yes, it's a more "direct/obvious" passive aggressive response, but doesn't that in fact make it less passive aggressive than his responses?

The fact is, aggression IS okay.  Like firearms, it's how you handle aggression, yours and others, that makes the difference.  Fuck all this wimpy faggy shit and attitude that's in vogue now.  It's retarded, unless your aim is to be a fucking consumption media junkie drone.  And I'm not talking about homosexuals or the mentally handicapped here.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 13, 2013, 07:50:31 AM

I suppose in a perverse way that cancels out the incidents of 'accidental' ND's and campus shootings. Oh, hang on, no it doesn't.

Yes.  Actually, it totally does. 100%.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on June 14, 2013, 01:25:43 AM

The fact is, aggression IS okay.  Like firearms, it's how you handle aggression, yours and others, that makes the difference.  Fuck all this wimpy faggy shit and attitude that's in vogue now.  It's retarded, unless your aim is to be a fucking consumption media junkie drone.  And I'm not talking about homosexuals or the mentally handicapped here.




You said more about yourself in that one sentence than anyone ever could with alleged 'passive aggressive' input. I'm neither passive nor aggressive; I do admit to asking awkward questions though.


Another avoidable death in Ohio..four year old shot himself with his fathers weapon that had been left on the car seat--I thought at first this was made up. Tragically (and I am sincere in this because I have a son) it isn't, and I cannot imagine the grief; all because of stupidity (cos guns don't kill people, we've established that-he'd just as soon as killed himself with a frying pan the same day) . How many more incidents before it's too many? Still cancelled out now? Or still being perverse?

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 14, 2013, 01:40:58 AM



You said more about yourself in that one sentence than anyone ever could with alleged 'passive aggressive' input. I'm neither passive nor aggressive; I do admit to asking awkward questions though.


Another avoidable death in Ohio..four year old shot himself with his fathers weapon that had been left on the car seat--I thought at first this was made up. Tragically (and I am sincere in this because I have a son) it isn't, and I cannot imagine the grief; all because of stupidity (cos guns don't kill people, we've established that-he'd just as soon as killed himself with a frying pan the same day) . How many more incidents before it's too many? Still cancelled out now? Or still being perverse?

So should we trade gun violence for knife violence and bar brawls?  For every one of your stupid examples I can bring up 2 or 3 that support the opposite position.  Do I believe that hundreds of millions should be punished for the faults of a few? Absolutely not. If you do, that's your right and I celebrate it.  You have the right to feel that way and my respect of you exercising that right 8)

Buck up, grow a pair, and get in touch with natural selection (He left a gun on the front seat with his 4 year old.,...did you even read what you wrote?).  Modern medicine has to have an offset somewhere; we can't have our cake and eat it too.


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on June 14, 2013, 01:56:05 AM
So should we trade gun violence for knife violence and bar brawls?  For every one of your stupid examples I can bring up 2 or 3 that support the opposite position.  Do I believe that hundreds of millions should be punished for the faults of a few? Absolutely not. If you do, that's your right and I celebrate it.  You have the right to feel that way and my respect of you exercising that right 8)

Buck up, grow a pair, and get in touch with natural selection (He left a gun on the front seat with his 4 year old.,...did you even read what you wrote?).  Modern medicine has to have an offset somewhere; we can't have our cake and eat it too.


Would you be the one to tell the family of the four year old that it was destined because of natural selection? Or haven't you 'grown a pair' to be that brave? My 'stupid examples' are facts.. If you think it's just propaganda, well...

onan

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on June 14, 2013, 01:25:43 AM
Not really.  Yes, it's a more "direct/obvious" passive aggressive response, but doesn't that in fact make it less passive aggressive than his responses?

The fact is, aggression IS okay.  Like firearms, it's how you handle aggression, yours and others, that makes the difference.  Fuck all this wimpy faggy shit and attitude that's in vogue now.  It's retarded, unless your aim is to be a fucking consumption media junkie drone.  And I'm not talking about homosexuals or the mentally handicapped here.


First, we are all passive aggressive. Not all the time. Not always as a primary response. But we all do it. York may not write what you like but his responses are by and large, direct and easy to understand.


Had you continued your thought in your first post regarding passive aggressive... it wouldn't have been. It wasn't as much of an insult as I think you believe it to be.


And we are probably having a misunderstanding with the word aggression. I can't think of one example of where the true use of aggression, in normal society, if viewed by an officer of the law, that wouldn't end up with the aggressor ending up with a fine or in jail.


And to take that further and suggest using aggression is by definition having "a pair" is the mindset of a junior high school student. Being assertive, direct, and standing up to aggression is not aggression. Maybe that is where we are not understanding each other.


And finally if you "handle" your aggression you are not being aggressive. I agree with you, what you do with behaviors is what makes the difference.

Sardondi

Quote from: Phantastic SanShiSan on June 14, 2013, 01:25:43 AM...Fuck all this wimpy faggy shit and attitude that's in vogue now.  It's retarded, unless your aim is to be a fucking consumption media junkie drone.  And I'm not talking about homosexuals or the mentally handicapped here.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 14, 2013, 01:40:58 AMYou said more about yourself in that one sentence than anyone ever could with alleged 'passive aggressive' input....

"I know you are but what am I?"


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Sardondi on June 14, 2013, 10:08:00 AM
"I know you are but what am I?"



Far too many passive aggressive overtones for me to get my head around that one Churchill.  ;D 




Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 14, 2013, 01:40:58 AM





Another avoidable death in Ohio..four year old shot himself with his fathers weapon that had been left on the car seat--I thought at first this was made up. Tragically (and I am sincere in this because I have a son) it isn't, and I cannot imagine the grief; all because of stupidity (cos guns don't kill people, we've established that-he'd just as soon as killed himself with a frying pan the same day) . How many more incidents before it's too many? Still cancelled out now? Or still being perverse?


In the United States, about 10 people -- 2 of which, are children under the age of 14 -- die every day as a result of accidental drowning. The vast majority of those drownings take place in a backyard swimming pool. Hundreds of children every year die needlessly. How many incidents until it`s too many? Isn`t it time for strict pool control?

NowhereInTime

Quote from: FightTheFuture on June 14, 2013, 12:53:32 PM

In the United States, about 10 people -- 2 of which, are children under the age of 14 -- die every day as a result of accidental drowning. The vast majority of those drownings take place in a backyard swimming pool. Hundreds of children every year die needlessly. How many incidents until it`s too many? Isn`t it time for strict pool control?
Well, frankly, yes.  Why do you think we have lifeguards at public pools and beaches?  Because they're good looking?  I worked for a guy who's son drowned and received no penalty. (Happens to be very wealthy.) Why is that acceptable to anyone? Shouldn't there be preventive measures before installing a pool?  What about swim certificates for all users and at least one CPR trained adult.  Is this too "burdensome"?  Should we just "get out of the way" and "unleash" haphazard recreational water use?

Quote from: NowhereInTime on June 14, 2013, 06:03:17 PM
... a guy who's son drowned and received no penalty...


Let me guess - handing a big wad of cash over to the government as a fine would have been appropriate?

Quote from: FightTheFuture on June 14, 2013, 12:53:32 PM

In the United States, about 10 people -- 2 of which, are children under the age of 14 -- die every day as a result of accidental drowning. The vast majority of those drownings take place in a backyard swimming pool. Hundreds of children every year die needlessly. How many incidents until it`s too many? Isn`t it time for strict pool control?
The key word in your post is "accidental".  When it comes to guns, there is no such thing as accidental shootings.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/05/14/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-accidental-shooting/[/size]


Zoo

I'm not a gun fan but I think if someone wants to own guns that all are full automatic, hand grenades, and a flame thrower then so be it. If cops can be as armed as much as are military then we should to!!1

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: FightTheFuture on June 14, 2013, 12:53:32 PM

In the United States, about 10 people -- 2 of which, are children under the age of 14 -- die every day as a result of accidental drowning. The vast majority of those drownings take place in a backyard swimming pool. Hundreds of children every year die needlessly. How many incidents until it`s too many? Isn`t it time for strict pool control?




...and how many children are saved each day because they can swim? How many children die each day because of a firearm? Your argument is facile. Let's broaden it away from the USA shall we? Many many more children die because of firearms than are saved because of them.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Zoo on June 14, 2013, 08:39:07 PM
I'm not a gun fan but I think if someone wants to own guns that all are full automatic, hand grenades, and a flame thrower then so be it. If cops can be as armed as much as are military then we should to!!1


So you'd have no problem with Joe public having weapons grade uranium either? After all the government has it..

Quote from: NowhereInTime on June 14, 2013, 06:03:17 PM
Well, frankly, yes.  Why do you think we have lifeguards at public pools and beaches?  Because they're good looking?  I worked for a guy who's son drowned and received no penalty. (Happens to be very wealthy.) Why is that acceptable to anyone? Shouldn't there be preventive measures before installing a pool?  What about swim certificates for all users and at least one CPR trained adult.  Is this too "burdensome"?  Should we just "get out of the way" and "unleash" haphazard recreational water use?


Abosolutely! I think there should be strict background checks for anyone desirous of installing a deadly swimming pool. The proper government agency would have to review all the paperwork and issue a license. Naturally, any person that has a notion to swim in the pool will have to prove they are proficient swimmers - under threat of heavy fines and potential jail time.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod