Messages

I tried what looked like a chewable vitamin C tablet in the astral and it had some taste.  One time during a LD I was hit in the face with a shovel and there was a strong taste of blood in my mouth.

I have found a lot of hemi-sync material on torrent search engines and posted on newsgroups.

LOL!  That's insane!  Here is more footage:
http://www.break.com/articles/tradingspouses2.html

Are you suggesting that my astral goat named Herbie isn't real?  I heard that one in GTASA...  

Anyways none of as actually travel to this magical astral world.  We are either crazy since we are unable to lay off the astral crack pipe as you say or there are those of us that just like to make things up because we crave attention and have nothing better to do.



Please understand that you are wasting your time here.  We are all too simple-minded to appreciate these amazing proofs that you speak of, which I'm sure prove your superior religious beliefs as an undeniable scientific fact.    

I have had a lot of success with rolling out.  I usually wait a few seconds after the vibes have started and mentally imagine myself rolling around inside myself and then off the bed and it works most of the time.  

Occasionally when I'm rolling around in my body and I feel like I'm detaching, instead of waiting to fall onto the floor I'll push myself up and try to float away.  

Sometimes I focus the rolling around sensation just inside of my head and I will feel a swirling sensation within my head and I will fall onto the floor.

I used to get headaches sometimes when attempting to project.  For me it seemed to be the result of trying too hard and trying to force the process.  What helped me have more success and get rid of the headaches was being more passive during AP attempts.

If this were possible I still wouldn't want to go without food.  I don't see any good reasons to start this diet which is probably unhealthy and difficult.  It's better to just eat healthy.

I would just swallow and try not to think about it or let it ruin your concentration.

I used to eat a lot of fattening unhealthy food.  In the last 6 months I've been eating very healthy and have cut out almost all junk food.  My physical health has really improved but it seemed to have done nothing for my projections.

This has happened to me several times before while between being awake and asleep.  I've heard several different types of music each time I thought it sounded a little too good for my mind to be making up.  I have also heard announcers talking and advertisements.  One time I was listening to a song which was relaxing and then all of the sudden an announcer's voice came on really loud and woke me up right away.  Sometimes I'm able to consciously listen for a while.  This is something that happens to me randomly I've never been able to consciously induce hearing radio signals.  

I posted before about an experience I had hearing a weather report where I had a possible verification:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=126498&highlight=#126498

There is an article about this at astralvoyage.com:
http://www.astralvoyage.com/projection/Radio_waves.html

Despite America's increasing amount of firearms we can see that violent crime is slowly decreasing in the U.S and things appear to be getting a little better.  You can view the statistics on the FBI's website here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

In 1990 the murder and manslaughter rate was 9.4 per 100,000 people.  In 2003 it was 5.7 per 100,000 people.

The 43:1 statistic isn't an FBI stat it was done by a guy named Kellerman in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986.  There were many criticisms of this study about how severely flawed the methodology is.  I've haven't heard anyone claim that suicide is self defense it has nothing to do with it and that would make no sense to say that.

The biggest problem I see is it ignored non-violent instances of defense with firearms which ignores the vast majority of cases of defense with guns.  The author also admitted it ignored cases where the criminal was injured by a gun.  In the study the majority of the deaths were from suicide which doesn't count as a violent crime against a victim.  Most of the other deaths besides for suicides were between felons, drug dealers, violent spouses, or involved criminal activity.  Out of 397 total deaths 41 were from homicide a lot of which was from criminal activities.  Other criticisms are that the study only looked at 2 non-random cities and it had an inaccurate estimation of gun ownership.    

One criticism that pointed out how flawed it was used stats from same area and it looked at violent deaths not involving firearms.  The ratio of violent deaths without guns compared to self defense killings without guns came out to 99:1 while the ratio of deaths involving guns was 43:1.

It is fun to shoot but there are still better reasons to have guns like for protection.  Or how about the decrease in violent crime that states that have allowed concealed weapons permits have seen.    

The study was not done by the pro-gun website they were merely posting the results of a study from a non-affiliated source.  Research from a pro-gun organization like the NRA or an anti-gun organization can't be trusted since it's then much more likely that the results could be biased to favor their cause.  For the last time the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology is not affiliated with the NRA or gunowners.org and the Clinton anti-gun researchers from the National Institute of Justice certainly weren't affiliated with anything pro-gun.  There is a pretty big difference between a website reporting a list of facts and findings from non-affiliated sources and who does the actual research.

Unlike the news the advantage of statistical analysis is it can give a good representation of all violent or non-violent crime and crime or defense.  

It's not normal that we have so many killings this country we have some serious social issues.

By the way, none of these statistics you named were from "scientific studies."

They were from Pro-Gun web sites.

They were posted on a pro-gun website that was citing stats from valid sources that were not related to any pro-gun organization.  The stats I posted before were from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig who were anti-gun researchers from the Clinton administration.  

The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology for example  is not affiliated with the NRA or gunowners.org.

I know of several people who were robbed at gun point with no shooting, who were held at gun point by their jealous husband with no shooting, and who were threatened by high-school thugs with a gun to their head with no shooting.

None of those made the news either.

But what does make the news, is the actual killings.

That's right, and if it was reported to the police it would have been included in crime statistics in the area.  Killing is the main thing that makes the news not non-violent defense.

And most cases of self defense with firearms involve no shooting or killing.  

I'm shocked that you are suggesting watching the news is more reliable than scientific studies on crime.

Have fun but it will prove nothing.  It's convenient to say that stats could all just be a lie but statistical analysis is at least a scientific way of getting stats.  Watching the news is not a scientific way to get stats.  The news reports what they think people will find most interesting for ratings.

Believe what you want but what is on the news is hardly an accurate representation of crime and self defense numbers in this country.  Statistically studying crime is not perfect but it can give a far more accurate stats.  The news is more likely to report a drive by shooting than it is to report someone stopping a mugger with a gun and ending the situation non-violently.

Well most criminals probably aren't going to turn in their guns in the event of a gun ban it will mostly be law abiding citizens that are disarmed.  Guns are widely available so there will always be a black market for criminals to get their weapons.  

England sounds like a nice place and I'm sure it's not being overrun by criminals but it appears the gun ban has not lowered crime.  

With this sort of thing it's violent crime that gets looked at.  Most of the time statistics on gun crime looks at the murder rate in ways like per 100,000 people.  Other types of violent crime like rape and robbery are also analyzed.      

Forget the internet propaganda. Watch the news.

A statistical analysis would be much more reliable.  Like I already said most instances of self defense with guns do not involve violence and that type of case rarely gets attention.

Frank,

In my opinion gun prohibition does make crime worse but if the people in Europe don't want guns then that's their choice and they shouldn't do it just because America has the second amendment.  

Guns are used to protect against crime it obviously happens.  Sometimes when there is a violent attack people respond using a gun by shooting the attacker and that's one type of self defense.  The more common type of defense ends with no violence.  Pointing a gun at someone can be a very good way to scare them off or make them surrender and stop the threat without violence.  

If I knew you had a gun I'd come up behind you and smash you over the head with something hard and heavy. You wouldn't stand a chance. By the time you came to reach for your gun you'd be unconscious, lol. How can that "protect" you. The crime protection element is pure fallacy. To me it's just ego tripping.

You probably wouldn't be able to find out if I had a gun.  That's why most people who carry a gun get a permit to carry concealed instead of open carry since they have the element of surprise and can avoid something like that.  I don't have a carry permit now but I do have a concealed holster and nobody can tell that I have a gun when I'm wearing it.  A lot of houses have guns and burglars have no way of knowing which houses they could get shot in unless if they have some inside information.  

I remember posting in another topic about a survey that found criminals are more likely to avoid messing with people that they know have guns.  It's not just cases of self defense that decreases crime it's the public perception that a criminal risks being shot if civilians are allowed to have guns.  

I'm more interested in the common purpose and the way guns are used and how they impact crime.  Since guns have practical purposes such as self defense and target shooting which is far more common then malicious use I prefer to have them around even though the original purpose was for war.  How guns are used is more important to me than the original or primary purpose.  Although the primary purpose in the hands of civilians shouldn't be to kill people.  

I understand that people in England couldn't carry guns so the way it was before is still very different from America.  But couldn't guns still be used for home defense?  I don't know much about England there could be other factors but at least in America there is the strong correlation between more guns and less crime.  Whether or not gun control is partly responsible for the increase of crime in England it still looks like it hasn't improved England's crime rates.

[More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.]

Where do you think criminals get their guns? Off a foggy dock, like in some movie???

They steal them from law abiding, flag-waving, citizens who bought them for home protection, then they re-sell them to other criminals.

They get guns like that sometimes but banning guns isn't going to make them go away.  Even though guns are legal in America most criminals get their guns from illegal sources anyways so little will change with a gun ban.  

Oh for gods sake. The crime rate goes up as the population goes up. Simply b/c there are more people.

That is false.  Crime has been decreasing in America despite the growing population and growing amount of guns.  So why does crime go down with things such as concealed weapons permits?  Is it because the population goes down?  In Washington D.C. in the years after guns were banned the murder rate went up 51 percent while the national murder rate went down 36 percent despite the increasing population.  

You are clearly mistaken here because the increasing population doesn't explain the increase with the stats since it's looked at in terms like deaths per 100,000 people.  For example Washington D.C. has a murder rate of 59.6 per 100,000.  Yet in a place like pro-gun Arlington Virginia they have murder rate of 1.6 per 100,00.  

From: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.

No guns = no gun crime

That would be true if we were able to get rid of guns.  But that is unlikely since guns are already very widely available and there will always be a black market for selling and producing firearms.  If guns were gone there would still be killing with other weapons and the world's social problems wouldn't go away.  There was a lot of war and murder way before the invention of guns.

Frank,  

There is no doubt that guns were designed for the purpose of war but what is more important is that they serve many practical purposes in the hands of civilians.  Unfortunately using a gun can be an effective way of killing someone but they can be just as effective for defending life and are used that way more often.  In America guns are more often used for practical purposes like self defense than they are misused.  Like I mentioned before there are practical uses that don't involve murder like self defense, target shooting, plinking, hunting, and there are many hobbies that involve guns like collecting and reloading.  If guns are only used to kill people I wonder why mine have only been used for target practice so far.    

Guns are really just a tool and like any other tool how useful they are depends on the person using it.  They are inanimate hunks of metal, plastic, and wood and are hardly to blame for the misuses of humans.  With your example of the knife it may not be designed for purposes of war like guns were but it can be used to kill, and when that happens the knife is hardly to blame.    

Violence is a social problem not a weapons problem.  The problem is that there are so many people willing to hurt others and gun control does not address the underlying issue of violence.  Criminals will still find ways to get guns when they are banned and even without guns they will find other ways to kill.  

The main thing that we should consider when deciding whether or not to enact gun control, is whether or not it actually reduces crime.  But there seems to be a very strong correlation between enacting gun control and rising crime rates.  If gun control actually worked then it wouldn't make sense in America why states that have allowed concealed weapons permits have then seen significant drops in crime.  It also wouldn't make sense that the safest states in America tend to have the least amount of gun control while the opposite is true of states with stricter gun laws.  It looks like gun control isn't going very well in other countries like England if crime rates are going up after they are banned.    

Gun control may have good intentions and sound nice but it appears to make the problem worse because prohibition of guns and drugs doesn't work.  Criminals will always have guns despite what laws we have and if citizens can't have them then that makes it easier for criminals to prey on them.  It would be easier to get away with a mass shooting in a gun free zone then it would be to get away with robbing a gun show.  

I'm not getting upset with Leyla if she keeps up the sexual rush from guns type argument this could get quite entertaining.   It's just that the way she responded didn't warrant that serious of a response from me so I used a lot of sarcasm.    

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on guns and reality creation.  What I was trying to get at is if we create and are responsible for our reality how can external guns be blamed?  I think rather the world's problems stem from internal issues not external objects.

Cars are designed for transportaion, and only result in a death when an accident occurs. Guns are meant to kill.

That's not true. You're forgetting about vehicular homicide.  So how can deaths involving cars only be accidents?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide  Cars mostly cause death from accidents but they can cause deaths from misuse like drunk driving and can be used as a weapon to do something like run someone over.  I'm not attacking cars but they kill many more people than guns.  I was also going to suggest that we blame spoons for making Rosie O'donnell fat and that is not by accident.  Guns have other uses besides for killing like self defense, target shooting, hunting, and there are many other legitimate hobbies with guns.  

I live in Texas and there is plenty of gun play around here. In my very pro-gun state the news media is all over it when there's a self-defense story. They milk it for all it's worth.

Stories like this:
http://www.tsra.com/true/sd07_10c.htm

How dare people defend themselves with firearms!  

Most self defense stories get little attention because they end without any violence and it's not as interesting for people to see on the news.  

Personally, I can name off at least a dozen people I know who have been held at gun point, been shot at, and have been shot. (By ex lovers, criminals, drunken neighbors, ect.)

I can't say I know a single person who's defended themselves with a gun. According to your (laughably silly) "eighty to one" statistic I should know plenty.

Even antigun Clinton researchers found that there were around 1.5 million instances of self defense with guns a year and the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found 2.5 million cases a year.  If either of those studies is even remotely accurate it's a much bigger difference than the approximate 30,000 deaths from guns a year.  

Look, the truth is Makaveli, you like guns because they're big and phallic and make you feel powerful. You get a sexual type rush when you hold one in your hand.

What a compelling argument!  I'm not going to bother trying to present facts and research anymore when you are able to use this sort of brilliant logic!  

Its true target shooting can be very fun and a bit of a rush but I can't say that I've ever gotten a hardon from shooting or handling a gun.  

You think "I have power over life and death!!!! I am GOD!!!!"

That is an interesting theory or maybe I have power to take some personal responsibility for myself instead of looking to blame external objects for the world's problems.  Adopting a victim mentality and looking to blame inanimate objects rather than people sounds appealing but it's not for me.  This might sound crazy but there is a lot of violence that people get threatened with everyday so I like the idea of taking some responsibility for my own protection.  That just might be better than only relying on police who usually get to the scene after crimes occur.

You imagine every bully you ever knew in school standing in front of you, begging for mercy.

Are you a psychic?  You seem to have us crazy "gun nuts" all figured out!    Maybe you shouldn't handle a gun if that's the sort of images your mind would conjure up from merely being around a firearm.  But I'm happy to say that inanimate objects like guns don't give me twisted violent fantasies like this.  I have more control over my thoughts than that.    

And you're not willing to give that adrenaline rush no matter how innocents die.

Assuming that gun control works.  If that were so it wouldn't explain why crime seems to go way up in areas where stricter gun laws are enforced and crime seems to decline with less restrictive gun laws.  Just look at what happened in Washington D.C.  By taking guns away you're mostly empowering criminals over citizens.  

If we want to blame something maybe we should blame people instead of guns.  It's not like guns have some mystical ability to go around killing people.  Although that may not be true because my 9mm just snuck out and did a drive by and robbed a gas station.      

Leyla, do you really have to be so insulting?  This is a spiritual forum and you might hurt my feelings.    Are you not able to have a civil discussion without insults and accusing me of getting boners from firearms, thinking I'm God, and having homicidal fantasies as a result of handling guns?

It looks like there are many people who are into spirituality that are antigun.  Many spiritualists or whatever they are called believe that we create our reality with our beliefs and thought patterns and I would agree.  To me it seems like projecting blame and fear onto external inanimate weapons takes away from the idea that we create and are responsibly for our realities.  I think guns are neither good nor bad they are just like any inanimate object or tool where their usefulness depends on the person using it.  

I think most people from both sides of the debate have good intentions of getting rid of violence and I understand why people don't like guns.  In opinion gun control tends to make crime much worse since prohibition doesn't work and it does not address the real issues surrounding violence.  

I just found an interesting article about guns and spirituality that explains what I'm trying to get at about spirituality and guns better:
http://www.consciouscreation.com/journal/articles/F11-TaoGun.htm
From the article: "Making the world a better place comes through the personal transformation of consciousness, not through external State control."