Khukuri techniques ??

Eikverang, in my lifetime they've swung three times from nature to nurture and back again. I haven't trusted 'science' for a long time now...or maybe it is just scientists giving science a bad name.

munk
 
Originally posted by Tom Holt
When confronted with the vast body of statistics, pseudo-statistics,.....

........Logic surely demands that it's time to move on now, and try and find a genuine solution, instead of compounding the error.
Click to expand...

Tom, I agree with all the things you said. It proves that guns in the hands of certain people living in a certain social context is bad. And it proves that when this situation is a fact it will be total loonacy to ban guns for regular people.

Talking about genuine solutions I have some, but they sound very weird. So I will save them for the next century. :D
 
Eikerang, I can't shake the notion that you think guns are a neccesary evil. Evil men with guns are a neccesary evil if the rest of us value our liberties.

Email me your wierd ideas. I like wierd ideas.

munk
 
Hey Evryone,
I'v been away and this took some reading to catch up!!

Spence, your comments about defending urself or ur property in the UK is not entirely accurate:
It is true that our law does not really allow you to defend your property to the lengths that you can in the US, but if some one was kicking the crap outta your car parked outside or you caught a burglar running out of your house with the VCR, it is within the law to restrain tehm and make a 'citizens arrest'.
The difference is to do with weapons.
It is always within the law to defend yourself if you are actually at imminent risk. if there was a burglar in the house it is assault if you simply pick up a standard lamp and clock them over the head with it (this is similar to the case where a farmer shot an intruder just for being there - thats what he was charged for, not owning the gun), but if the burglar was attacking you or your wife or whatever then you are defending yourself if you clout him - Like when George Harrison was attacked and stabbed in his home, his wife knocked out the nutter with a lamp in self defence.
If Mrs Harrison kept a baseball bat with a nail thru it by the front door, and hit the attacker with that, there is a case of assault. This is because there is only one reason to have bat, and that is for hitting people - that makes it an offensive weapon and it is a crime to posess one of these.
If i were mugged in the street and during the scuffle i picked up a rock and did the mugger some damage, its ok (within reason) because it was self defence. However, if i pulled out my knife (even if it was less then 3") and stabbed the mugger, i could be accused of attacking him with an offencive weapon.
 
I think it is rediculous that if someone was in my home on the rob i couldn't give them a hiding, but its not really 'self defence' is it - just them being there?. If i could prove that they meant harm, then fine, but it means the crime has to have been committed first!!

Weapons - In the UK a blade over 3" is an offensive weapon and it is illegal to posess one. So if a policeman visited my house and found my Khukuri he could confiscate it. If i was using my khukuri in the country whilst camping/survival, it could still be confiscated. However, British police arent really gonna take it away if i can convince them personally that i've not got it to harm ppl, and theres no way i can use a sub3" blade for what i do with the Khuk - they'll just turn a blind eye.
 
Originally posted by munk
The thing I have been trying to talk about here is why the population in place A had to get more arms in the first place! Obviesly the criminals had gotten their hands on guns that were easily accessible for all people. So if they hadn't had that possibility in the first place then the people of place A would never have had to worry about burglars with guns at all. Burglars and muggers would still be there, but they would not have had guns to threaten your life. However after this situation with criminals with guns has arisen, after that it will make sense as you say to be well armed in order to prevent violent crimes. Violent crimes that could have been avoided in the frist place, but now it is too late. So I support wearing guns in the US today! It is the point of no return. And so your gun policy of place A today is correct. >>>Eikverang


Eikverang, There is no such thing as, 'the first place'. The sword was once the controlling weapon. Instead of arguing if gun ownership had not become so prevalent, it would be better to argue if social conditions had not deteriorated, and honest citizens prevented by statute from using the firearms they owned. (unlawful to carry, load, or have access to in many places)

I think Holt is far more concise and pointed than I on this topic. And yes, I did read what you said, and do not think you are narrow or buying into popular myths, though I do think your education is continueing.

munk
Click to expand...

After the sword there was some generations with peace within society, enforced by Christianity and the king's power. The gun is not a successor of the sword for the regular citizen. It is possible to accelerate from 0 to 100 in a very short time.

Yes, better discussion about social conditions. Our main thread has been a bit too hypothetical. But I have had some fun today with Americans and their love for firearms. ;)
You are not as bad as Norwegian farmers are about hunting wolves though, but you are in their class.
 
lol - i don't really know anything about the NRA to get me legging it for the door yet :D


one quick internet search later:
------oooohhhhhhhhh! National Rifle Association! i see.


! that sort of thing is not unheard of int he UK. theres a rifle shooting club close by in my town that i've been to. I just don't have enough money for my own. I am a military man though (3bt Royal Welch Fusileers) and regularly shoot some hot guns!

I ain't running nowhere mate. If thats all NRA is why are ppl scared?

Half of the brits visiting the US expect evry man and his dog to be carrying a six shooter anyway ;)
 
Originally posted by munk
Eikverang, in my lifetime they've swung three times from nature to nurture and back again. I haven't trusted 'science' for a long time now...or maybe it is just scientists giving science a bad name.

munk
Click to expand...

Oftenly we hear in the media:"Science has abandoned such theories a long time ago... " or :"Science has now proven...". And the very next year they seem to be back those old ideas again. The problem about nature vs nurture is that there is a battle between social scientists, who are convinced we have no biology, and biologists' functional world view. Some years one group seems to dominate society, other years the other group is most popular. There is no swing in opinion among scientists. There is merely a long lasting battle between groups.

Before 2. World War the biologists had the upper hand. All European nations and the USA enforced massive sterilizations of people that were thought to be in the posession of bad genetic material. The political agenda of all Western nations back then was to conserve the white Nordic race. After WW2 this was totally abandoned (ending in the 60s in Norway...) and the Germans had to take the blame alone for being the only ones possesing such mad ideas, since they were the only ones who had brought it to the extreme of saying the Nordic race was superior. Well, history is written by the victorious.

Of course the idea of a superior race was madness. But Jews and socialist left wings and intelectuals used this as a weapon to step on biology so hard that it could not rise again in social issues. All done to fit their own political agenda. I don't know what happened between those times and today. But now our old science has been reviwed. It has gone through a selection process, evolution if you will, and today all the childhood diseases of the past have been eradicated. Today the focus is on normal all human behavioural traits, health, psychology and other things. No discriminating thoughts anymore.

So I see this as a coming science to count on for the years to come. But we are still awaiting for a turning point. And I have no idea when it will come.

munk I will e-mail you, but not tonight, I need some sleep.
 
. But I have had some fun today with Americans and their love for firearms.
You are not as bad as Norwegian farmers are about hunting wolves though, but you are in their class.>>> Eikerang

A class I'm proud to belong in, then. Americans love freedom more than firearms, firearms as symbol and tool provide the same. We all started as equals* in this Nation, and the second amendment was to keep it that way.

(* with apologies to descendants of slavery, a world wide illness at that time.)

munk
voting member, NRA
 
"If thats all NRA is then why are ppl scared?"

Beats me. Years ago here in Reno, we had a woman drive a Cadillac down the sidewalk in front of the Virginia Street casinos trying to kill as many people as she could.

Haven't heard an outcry against big fat heavy cars being the scourge of our city streets, though.
 
Originally posted by munk
.
Americans love freedom more than firearms, firearms as symbol and tool provide the same. We all started as equals* in this Nation, and the second amendment was to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

Who doesn't love freedom? I do too. However I don't need physical symbols to know that my abstract thoughts are real. Hmmm... tribal societies use physical symbols too for symbolizing their abstract toughts. Oh well, I guess it is only human.

But considering this: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,52971,00.html
I understand that you need guns when you have people in your society sick enough for producing something like that.
 
Originally posted by munk
Eikerang, I can't shake the notion that you think guns are a neccesary evil. Evil men with guns are a neccesary evil if the rest of us value our liberties.

munk
Click to expand...

This fits the biological hypothesis of that psychopathy (which is a genetical trait) served the population as a whole when those few psychopathic individuals run in front of the tribal combat line and hit very many enemies on their heads with clubs. They tended to get killed a lot themselves, but they still managed to maintain their reproduction enough to consist of 1-1,5% of the population (Norwegian number). Probably the tribal population itself would limit their numbers in time of peace simply because they were too dangerous to have around in large numbers. In the society of today on the other hand we have a so called free society where such people tend to have a higher reproduction than ordinary people. So the tendency of psychopathy is increasing in all Western societies.
 
Originally posted by munk


Email me your wierd ideas. I like wierd ideas.

munk
Click to expand...

I will take my chances and spill my ideas here.

In society today we have differences in reproduction. Well, I don't have any statistics on this. So I must admit I am saying this based on self observation.

The tendency today is that the less good your personal genetics are the earlier you start your reproduction and the more kids you have. The more hard working, intelligent and ambitious you are the less you reproduce. Look at academics, they don't have babies until after 30, and look at other social groups, they start in their mid 20s and some even before 20, and they tend to have more offspring. The same goes for people with psychopathic traits, some of them tend to reproduce very well since they have several children with several women.

Well, since we all know that it is our genes that determine how far we can reach and how much our efforts benefit the nation, then we all have to realize that this is a road to nowhere. A nation's success depends on population genetics. And as certain groups with a genetics that exclude them from the competitive educational society, then this also leads to the formation of large social subgroups that have no choice but to turn to crime in order to have a personal economy. And there you get your gun problem.

So I call for eugenics.

I am not saying that we should start negative eugenics like sterilizing. But we should do something to favour reproduction in certain social groups, and perhaps put a limit on it in other social groups. This is called positive eugenics since it doesn't exclude or discriminate anybody.

This all seems pretty inhuman doesn't it? Well, before you judge then take a look at yourself, you are alrady practicing eugenics. When you chose your wife you chose her for her soul, her abilities, and social status... in other words for her genes. So already you have been out "gene shopping" the best possible genes for your kids. And that makes you and me equal when it comes to personal agendas. The only difference is that I have realized how we could apply this sexual selection process for good genes onto the society as a whole and not only use it for personal gains (as we all already do) but for the best of society (and the best for society is the best for any free individual too as he is part of a society).

China and Singapore are already openly discussing this as national agendas. And if the giant China achieves a better population average then the US or The West as a whole then we can kiss our dominant economical position in this world good bye.

This guy has some good ideas: http://home.att.net/~eugenics/
 
Originally posted by Eikerværing
Well, before you judge then take a look at yourself, you are alrady practicing eugenics. When you chose your wife you chose her for her soul, her abilities, and social status... in other words for her genes. So already you have been out "gene shopping" the best possible genes for your kids.
Click to expand...

There are those that were attracted to their wives by things other than physical appearances, or even "personality"...
 
Eikerang; The more hard working, intelligent and ambitious you are the less you reproduce. Look at academics, they don't have babies until after 30, and look at other social groups, they start in their mid 20s and some even before 20, and they tend to have more offspring. >>>>

This may be suggested by the birth rates in the industrialized nations now, but there are far more variables at work here.

>> Who doesn't love freedom? I do too. However I don't need physical symbols to know that my abstract thoughts are real. Hmmm... tribal societies use physical symbols too for symbolizing their abstract toughts. Oh well, I guess it is only human.>> Eikerang

I said symbol and TOOL for firearms, but you conveniently overlooked that. The flag is a symbol, but we don't love it per see, we love the Nation behind it. You're being patronizing, Eikerang. It is not a symbol that keeps Governments straight and families secure. I'd like to see your abstractions do that. If you think you can carry on a conversation without the superior air and smug one liners, I'll continue. Nothing abstract about that, Eikerang, that's a value judgement based upon real behavior.

munk
 
Scholars seek facts and knowledge,
Sages seek truth and enlightenment,
Warriors seek only swift victory so that peace might be restored.
 
I think I'm a well armed, sloppy sage. Maybe I'm not....they don't have to have followers do they? Well, my son's love me.

Come to think...scholars become sages, warriors become sages, and sages become cranky.

munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top