Oolite Bulletins

As wildeblood so generously put it:
"As gun-control "debate", or abuse of Christmas cards?"

We could side step the entire polorising gun thing entirely and just move onto sh*t Christmas cards!
If I may begin?

http://www.collegehumor.com/post/700721 ... -new-level

ClymAngus wrote:

As wildeblood so generously put it:
"As gun-control "debate", or abuse of Christmas cards?"

We could side step the entire polorising gun thing entirely and just move onto sh*t Christmas cards!
If I may begin?

http://www.collegehumor.com/post/700721 ... -new-level

There are some repeats here, but plenty different ones too. These are the cards of a society that drank laudanum as a pick-me-up:
http://www.digitiser2000.com/main-page/ ... tmas-cards

(the card showing a gun-toting dog is just a coincidence, I swear)

I found the Robin card particularly offensive.

Me too!

Not being a christmas fan (to put it mildly) I always liked this one:


Of course, the weapon is just a coincidence...

As a side note, here's another clutch of scary fat men in red and refreshingly, not a side arm in sight (or concealed)

http://www.digitiser2000.com/main-page/ ... p-shop-man

What about those Roman Catholics, hey?

Wildeblood wrote:

What about those Roman Catholics, hey?

I completely fail to see what this has to do with guns or christmas cards. Can we stay on topic please?

Keeping the Saturn in Saturnalia:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1409/sa ... i_7227.jpg

So now I'm going to do what Yah-ha-Tey did, and remove it so anyone coming along later won't know what you two were replying to.

Everyone propagandizes around Christmastime, it's not just a time for gun-shop owners and politicians, ya know. So pommies, what happened about the cinemas refusing to show the Lord's prayer ads before the new Star Wars movie? Did they get that sorted out?

Wildeblood wrote:

So pommies, what happened about the cinemas refusing to show the Lord's prayer ads before the new Star Wars movie? Did they get that sorted out?

I don't know. Last thing I heard, the decision was being decried as an assault on freedom of speech/religion, even though it was a commercial decision by the cinemas not to show it because their own market research shows that their paying customers object to having other people's religious (or political, for that matter) opinions shoved on to them. People will put up with being pestered with blandishments for soft drinks, booze, invitations to get heavily into debt, etc., because we're inured to it, but basically religion is seen as something to be carried out in private, between consenting adults.

The latest thing I've found is this, from the Torygraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... rayer.html

Although there seems to be a basic misunderstanding here, that there's a difference between an advert (which advertisers have paid the cinemas to foist on to people who have paid to watch something else) and a film (which the cinemagoers have - in this case more-or-less - paid to go and see). File under "Winterval".

Wildeblood wrote:

So now I'm going to do what Yah-ha-Tey did, and remove it so anyone coming along later won't know what you two were replying to.

Everyone propagandizes around Christmastime, it's not just a time for gun-shop owners and politicians, ya know. So pommies, what happened about the cinemas refusing to show the Lord's prayer ads before the new Star Wars movie? Did they get that sorted out?

Two can play at that game.

Also I fail to see what needs "sorting out".

Hey guys, I wrote half a post about America's gun culture and the problems America has with guns. I just wanted to say I'm gonna post it in a few hours, but please don't lock this topic before then!

FSOneblin wrote:

Hey guys, I wrote half a post about America's gun culture and the problems America has with guns. I just wanted to say I'm gonna post it in a few hours, but please don't lock this topic before then!

Is that what they call a "trigger warning"? Trigger... guns... geddit?

Wildeblood wrote:

FSOneblin wrote:

Hey guys, I wrote half a post about America's gun culture and the problems America has with guns. I just wanted to say I'm gonna post it in a few hours, but please don't lock this topic before then!

Is that what they call a "trigger warning"? Trigger... guns... geddit?

Haha, I suppose so. Anyway, I'm having trouble writing about the current gun culture in America, probably because I should be studying. So, here are the first two thirds of it.


THIS IS NOT YET COMPLETED, I'LL TRY AND FINISH THIS SOON, BUT IT WILL BE DONE SOMETIME WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK.

However, if anyone has questions about things I'm saying, feel free to ask me. The sources for this are buried somewhere on my bookshelf or my hard drive. Lots of it is from personal experience, America has a poverty problem, and I've spent some time in the "bad part" of a medium sized city.


I will state this bluntly first: I believe no private citizen should have the right to a modern firearm. I am an American, born and raised in Springfield, Illinois. I've spoken to a good number of people about violence as well as done my own research, but I'll talk about people I've talked to and poverty in America (which is important to understanding guns) later, when I finish this thing.

First, guns prevent neither violence nor crime. Looking at studies it is undeniable that more guns means more people get shot. I read one discussing how criminals got guns, and some 90% stole them from people who owned them legally. There are a huge number of firearm owners trying to defend themselves against the people they've armed. There is also an argument that criminals would simply use knives instead, or that "only criminals will have guns." For one thing, guns are both physically and psychologically easier to kill (or harm in any way) another human than knives. It is physically easier because it is a "point in direction and pull trigger" weapon. Guns and crossbows were famous for being as "average Joe" weapons because they were lethal and easy. Hell, aiming with guns only became common practice in the 19th century; soldiers before that were trained to level, pull the trigger, and re-load; they shoot a lead ball that is bound to end somewhere, make a loud noise and lots of smoke. It is psychologically easier because humans are programmed not to kill other humans, and it becomes much easier to kill or harm another human the further away you are from said human. Furthermore, arming civilians will not help prevent these attacks. While I love my concealed-carry friends to death, they lack the proper training to handle themselves in such a situation. They would act more as a quantum cascade mine if you will; more bi-standers would wind up getting shot. Having private citizens carry firearms does much more harm than good.

Now, lets talk about history. The American constitution does grantee "the right to bare arms." This was so it could maintain a militia. The army was to be made up of an armed citizen militia. Every male would be a member of it, and guns were needed so the citizens could train. However, this ended badly. The militiamen were something of a joke, and their training consisted of drinking; they lacked the discipline of the Swiss. George Washington himself, and most other generals of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty, complained of their lack of discipline and poor training. The idea of "A Nation of Riflemen" is an outdated notion scrapped shortly after it's attempted application.

Next: Poverty and the Modern Gun Culture.

FSOneblin wrote:

I believe no private citizen should have the right to a modern firearm.

This is my opinion also. In my county only paprika spay is allowed for citizens and works well imho.

Once I caught a sneak-thief in my house, neither of us held any weapons. I would be in much harder situation if I have a gun somewhere locked in my house but there is another in his hand.