Firearms & co... hate or love them?

[Bobinator]

Dummies with guns in cars shooting at other dummies with guns is a good thing, the more that blow each other away the better for us all. Guns aren\'t a bad thing the boneheads with their fingers on the triggers are, so why not just make it more difficult for muppets to get guns, if you dont need one you cant have one, are you military? no, well bugger off you cant have a gun then, are you a pig? no, see previous answer.
Nobody actually needs a gun, if you cant sort out whatever troubles you have with something non lethal, like a Tazer, or your fists your fooling yourself thinking a gun will make things all ok.
Imagine, its pitch black, you wake up in the middle of the night, theres strange noises down stairs, \"Good job I got Mr. 44 under the pillow, I best go see what the heck is goin\' on\" you pad down the stairs as quiet as a doormouse sleeping, more noises coming from the kitchen. Your thinking to your self \"Hoorah, its time to unleash the pain, this is the moment I become a man, the moment I have been awaitin\' all my life\" BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! \"Oh Jesus jumpimg H. Christ I\'ve wet me my pants, what the hell?! I\'ve shot the wife\" Happens alot in the US apparently, weird eh?

 

[Bobinator]

Originally posted by jondalar

Originally posted by Bobinator
Dummies with guns in cars shooting at other dummies with guns is a good thing, the more that blow each other away the better for us all.

Never mind that only a fraction of bullets fired in a drive by actually hit intended target. The rest of the bullets being stopped by other things including innocents. Guess that\'s their own fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, yeah!?

What? did I say anywhere that killing innocents is good or they where at fault for being near a drive by, no I dont think I did, all I said was that dicks killing each other in my own view is friggin great, I couldn\'t give a flying f**k if they all died of aids overnight, good news I reckon, the fewer the better.

 

[Brimshack]

Originally posted by jondalar
What I can\'t understand is the thinking behind needing a gun in case of crime.

I think it\'s a bit like fear of airplanes. It doesn\'t matter if they are statistically safer than cars. What scares you most is the possibility of that minute or so completely helpless as it plumets to the earth. Whether or not we are safer with guns, they do provide a sense (possibly illusory) of control. That feeling is far more compelling than statistics will ever be.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I hope for the best in man, but am prepared for the worst. Which historically speaking is shown far more often than the best.

I couldn\'t let this slip by. It\'s patently false.
FAR more people have NOT been the victims of gun violence than have. Therefore, the worst historically happens rather rarely.

 

[vincegamer]

stupid but true fact

rules regulating behavior for \"safety\" can be damn stupid.

The local government of a town I lived in once decided not to paint crosswalk markers in the intersections.
Why not?
The reason given was - I kid you not - because more pedestrians are hit in crosswalks than in other parts of the street so if we don\'t paint crosswalks fewer pedestrians will be hit.


OF COURSE more pedestrians are hit in crosswalks. THAT\'S WHERE they cross the street!
A logical extension of that logic is to not pave streets since most automobile accidents happen in them.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I hope for the best in man, but am prepared for the worst. Which historically speaking is shown far more often than the best.

I couldn\'t let this slip by. It\'s patently false.
FAR more people have NOT been the victims of gun violence than have. Therefore, the worst historically happens rather rarely.

You\'re bending the logic to fit your particular viewpoint.
Historically man has been shown to do far greater atrocities than good. Simply not being one of the victims doesn\'t make it good. Simply following the rules of society because it benefits you isn\'t a good act either.

I have a feeling you believe man is inherently good.
I do not.
I believe man is inherently neutral and will do pretty much anything to benefit himself, be it good or evil, while every now and then there are a few selfless individuals who break beyond the selfish behavior.
I simply am prepared to protect me and mine from those who would benefit from our pain and suffering.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by vincegamer
The reason given was - I kid you not - because more pedestrians are hit in crosswalks than in other parts of the street so if we don\'t paint crosswalks fewer pedestrians will be hit.

This is why I cross wherever I damn well feel like it, some painted lines or coloured lights won\'t protect me as much as simply not being there at the same time that the cars are...

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I have a feeling you believe man is inherently good.
I do not.
I believe man is inherently neutral and will do pretty much anything to benefit himself, be it good or evil, while every now and then there are a few selfless individuals who break beyond the selfish behavior.

That\'s very Hobbesian... Find out which one of these YOU are with this handy Alignment Quiz! lol

 

[Shawn R. L.]

Originally posted by jondalar
Why is the need to have a gun such a deep-rooted thing in America? Not trying to offend, just interested! Does it vary state to state or is it a country wide thing?

True, it has been a deep rooted thing although it is in decline as we become more socialist and people look more and more to the government for the solution for everything.

I think the initial thing was the very foundational idea that underlies much of the founding of our country. America was a response to what had been used and abused elsewhere. The government/church OWNED you and all aspects of your life. The founders turned that on it\'s head and basically tried to make the government the servant of the populace not the other way around. By encouraging the citizenry to be armed the founders were creating a (at that time) credible counter to the force of arms that a government could mass against the citizens. Obviously technology has outstripped that idea and now our government is so much more powerful than us. Firearms represent to many Americans a sense of individual autonomy. I am able to hold a great amount of power over myself, my belongings. For many there is a historical context to it. NOT just the idea that \"hey sucka, I\'m packin\' heat and don\'t mess with me. I cant make up for all the Hollywood images and stereotypes that people have of this idea but in a nutshell that\'s my take on why it is such a closely held right.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I hope for the best in man, but am prepared for the worst. Which historically speaking is shown far more often than the best.

I couldn\'t let this slip by. It\'s patently false.
FAR more people have NOT been the victims of gun violence than have. Therefore, the worst historically happens rather rarely.

You\'re bending the logic to fit your particular viewpoint.
Historically man has been shown to do far greater atrocities than good. Simply not being one of the victims doesn\'t make it good. Simply following the rules of society because it benefits you isn\'t a good act either.

I have a feeling you believe man is inherently good.
I do not.
I believe man is inherently neutral and will do pretty much anything to benefit himself, be it good or evil, while every now and then there are a few selfless individuals who break beyond the selfish behavior.
I simply am prepared to protect me and mine from those who would benefit from our pain and suffering.

I think man is inherently evil and corrupt.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
You\'re bending the logic to fit your particular viewpoint.
Historically man has been shown to do far greater atrocities than good.

I reread your post and realize I misspoke. I agree that \"the worst\" is more common than \"the best\". However, I think the middle is the most common.
In other words, it\'s far more common to live a passive, productive life than to be involved in a fatal act of violence.

As to whether people are good or bad (and for that matter your statement on best or worst), I find good and bad are subjective and lack universal definition. I try not to use such subjective and judgmental terms. People are just people, with greater or lesser tendencies to do certain actions, some of which are detrimental to a safe, smoothly running society.

 

[Talion]

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by Modderrhu
I\'m anti-gun in that I am not interested in ever having one. I couldn\'t care less if my neighbour has one or not. In fact, he does. But who is more fearful? The person who will entrust their personal safety in a gun, and the person who will blockade their own home. Who is more free? The person who does not live in fear.
I don\'t choose to have a gun simply because I don\'t want one. My choice is not to give into paranomia, I refuse to be afraid.
It\'s not about me being afraid, it\'s about me protecting what is mine, and more importantly my wife and 3 kids. It would be alot different if it were just myself.

And what are you protecting yourself from another loonatic with a gun. If it was better regulated he probably wouldn\'t have a gun, meaning you wouldn\'t need a gun to protect yourself.
And the guy who may want to rob your house, thinks i better have a gun, because they\'ve probably got one. Guns breed Guns.............there\'s no escaping it.

Unfortunatley it to late for America now. The innocent have guns to protect from the villans, the villans have guns to protect from the innocent.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by Talion

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by Modderrhu
I\'m anti-gun in that I am not interested in ever having one. I couldn\'t care less if my neighbour has one or not. In fact, he does. But who is more fearful? The person who will entrust their personal safety in a gun, and the person who will blockade their own home. Who is more free? The person who does not live in fear.
I don\'t choose to have a gun simply because I don\'t want one. My choice is not to give into paranomia, I refuse to be afraid.
It\'s not about me being afraid, it\'s about me protecting what is mine, and more importantly my wife and 3 kids. It would be alot different if it were just myself.

And what are you protecting yourself from another loonatic with a gun. If it was better regulated he probably wouldn\'t have a gun, meaning you wouldn\'t need a gun to protect yourself.
And the guy who may want to rob your house, thinks i better have a gun, because they\'ve probably got one. Guns breed Guns.............there\'s no escaping it.

Unfortunatley it to late for America now. The innocent have guns to protect from the villans, the villans have guns to protect from the innocent.

Are you saying I\'m a lunatic? Also does the use of red letters mean you are really angry?

 

[philologus]

Sorry for the DP, but while we are on the subject of fear:


\"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity \"
-Sigmund Freud

 

[Talion]

Originally posted by philologus
Are you saying I\'m a lunatic? Also does the use of red letters mean you are really angry?

From this post, I\'m not quite sure you may be a bit emotionally unstable.
As for the red writing it\'s a differnent colour to blue. Nor more nor Less.

as for

\"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity \"
-Sigmund Freud

I perosnally think anything spouted by this arse, is retarded nonsense

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by Talion

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by Modderrhu
I\'m anti-gun in that I am not interested in ever having one. I couldn\'t care less if my neighbour has one or not. In fact, he does. But who is more fearful? The person who will entrust their personal safety in a gun, and the person who will blockade their own home. Who is more free? The person who does not live in fear.
I don\'t choose to have a gun simply because I don\'t want one. My choice is not to give into paranomia, I refuse to be afraid.
It\'s not about me being afraid, it\'s about me protecting what is mine, and more importantly my wife and 3 kids. It would be alot different if it were just myself.

And what are you protecting yourself from another loonatic with a gun.

Are you saying I\'m a lunatic? Also does the use of red letters mean you are really angry?

This is why I asked; you framed your question/statement in a fashion that suggested that I was a loonatic (sic). I was just asking for clarification. My request for clarification caused you to further suggest I had some type of mental defect, which reinforces my original interpretation of your first post. Perhaps I should be worried about you owning a gun. Or grateful that they are more difficult to acquire in the UK.

 

[Talion]

You either heavily mis-interpreted my post, or was looking for someone to make a personal attack on yourself.

Apologies if my words were taken out of context.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by Talion
You either heavily mis-interpreted my post, or was looking for someone to make a personal attack on yourself.

Apologies if my words were taken out of context.

No apology necessary. I did not feel that I attacked you either. I merely pointed out your statement and asked whether I understood it correctly. I then correlated your erratic response with a query regarding whether I should be concerned about the \"instability\" you mentioned manifesting in you rather than me. You indicate that I was mistaken, fair enough. Mea Culpa.

I think if you search through my posts in this thread and others, I don\'t exhibit any trends of attacks on other users. Debate, Yes. Attacks, No.

 

[Orb]

Originally posted by philologus
I think if you search through my posts in this thread and others, I don\'t exhibit any trends of attacks on other users. Debate, Yes. Attacks, No.

Can\'t disagree there! This one got me getting quite tense at times, and digging round the internet, but it was all done with great spirit. I may disagree with Philologus here and there, but not on this point! :beer:

 

[Ritual]

I think overall this discussion has been pretty civil. It hasn\'t lead anywhere, but that\'s another story! lol

 

[Modderrhu]

Even if it hasn\'t lead anywhere, a civil discussion of this sort is fruitful. At the least, it makes people think, if only to re-evaluate or re-affirm their personal positions. And that\'s always a healthy exercise.