Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second
A man bought some ammo for his shotgun at his local walmart in San Diego, walmart's gun/ammo policy says that all guns and ammo cannot be returned once bought, the man wanted to return his shotgun ammo but couldnt, he told employees in the sporting area that he would be back to kill them, he then later loaded his shotgun and "returned" his ammo by shooting it all at walmart in their parking lot, no one kileld, no one harmed. later a swat team of police came to the man's house after several people complained and had given police the man's licence plate, the police then arrested him after 8 hour stand off at his house. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070909-1009-swat.html
Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second
I just bought my first shotgun from walmart a month ago, I was astonished that they let me buy buckshot with the shotgun! Thats just asking for a turn around robbery.
Sorry but the law in the US is just fucked. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.
Caveman wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 14:38 Sorry but the law in the US is just fucked. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Maybe for defending yourself... But I do semi-support that. A tazer or something could do better if you find a robber or something at your house.
No, not even for defending yourself. Thats not a reason in my book to have a gun. Something that will cause harm but wont kill is the right way to go, something like a tazer/stun gun. Whats to stop someone from going to a shop, purchasing a gun and then to turn around and hold them up? Makes no sense.
I support having guns, I mean not really for using them or having them in your house, unless you go hunting, then you NEED a gun, some people say well ban guns, allow bow n arrows.....soon you'll start seeing people being killed with an arrow xD
As a born Texan I would of course lean twords freedom of guns. I do however think that you need to complete several courses and pass a mental competency test before you are allowed to own a gun. As is it right now I can just walk in to any store in America and buy just about anything above a handgun and walk out in the street within 15 minutes of purchase. This is bullshit, I hate it but the obliv has to have his guns and would be perfectly willing to earn them.
I agree with Oblivion. Freedom of guns should not be restricted but strict courses must be taken by a prospective buyer before the purchase. There are SO MANY rules and regulations and practices that go along with having a gun. A person must be exposed to all of those before being allowed to own a firearm. IMO, buying guns should be treated like how driver licenses are issued. People can't protest about that...they must take the test to earn the license. Likewise, prospective gun buyers must take long strict courses and pass a mental/social test. To walk into a store and buy a gun and walk out in 15-60 minutes is just bullshit.
Caveman wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 14:38 Sorry but the law in the US is just fucked. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Yeah, I will enjoy to hear you say that when the zombies stat eating you.
i agree with defence, but something like an ak-47 is NOT DEFENCE! mabye a handgun, but no machine guns! but i think you dont need a GUN for defence, go learn some martial arts or something, they work better.
This reminds me of ninja vs gun, ninja did all this kung fu and beat the guy up, then when the guy had the chance, he shot the ninja and won.
scarabguy wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 16:33 i agree with defence, but something like an ak-47 is NOT DEFENCE! mabye a handgun, but no machine guns! but i think you dont need a GUN for defence, go learn some martial arts or something, they work better. Martial Arts isn't much for long range. If a robber comes in your house, and he's the other side of the room or the end of the hallway, it'd be a bit hard to kick or hit him from where you are standing.
Caveman wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 15:38 Sorry but the law in the US is just fucked. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. That is such a stupid thing to say. If regular people aren't allowed to have guns, then only the people that shouldn't have guns will have them. You react so quickly to an isolated incident that common sense is impeded.
Viking wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 15:10 Caveman wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 14:38 Sorry but the law in the US is just fucked. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Yeah, I will enjoy to hear you say that when the zombies stat eating you. So funny it went in my siggy! BlueThen wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 17:53 scarabguy wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 16:33 i agree with defence, but something like an ak-47 is NOT DEFENCE! mabye a handgun, but no machine guns! but i think you dont need a GUN for defence, go learn some martial arts or something, they work better. Martial Arts isn't much for long range. If a robber comes in your house, and he's the other side of the room or the end of the hallway, it'd be a bit hard to kick or hit him from where you are standing. Well, scarab is definitely right about the AK-47 and high-powered assault weapons. You don't need those for defense...should be only for avid gun collectors and the military. But martial arts? WTF? Most citizens don't exercise!
Starbuzz wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 15:02 To walk into a store and buy a gun and walk out in 15-60 minutes is just bullshit. Er, isn't there a 3-day wait of some sort?
cmatt42 wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 18:30 Well, when did they change that? I am not sure...the 3 day-waiting period was initially proposed by someone in Congress...it never went through. I may be wrong. Eitherway, in my state (PA), there is no waiting period.
Jecht wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 23:59 Caveman wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 15:38 Sorry but the law in the US is just fucked. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. That is such a stupid thing to say. If regular people aren't allowed to have guns, then only the people that shouldn't have guns will have them. You react so quickly to an isolated incident that common sense is impeded. I mean guns shouldn't be allowed full stop. Allowing some random person to own a gun is just asking for trouble.
No waiting in NC SC or Texas, the waiting period is for handguns only as far as I know.
cncnick13 wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 19:14 hi i idiot are back Well this is why you shouldn't have GUNS.
The single best deterrent to crime is an armed and trained general populace. Nothing stops aspiring felons quite like the knowledge that they'll more than likely end up dead if they act on their impulses- nothing. Guns are the proverbial genie in the bottle- there's no way to rid society of them, and if you enact legislation to prohibit gun ownership then the only people who will be unable to acquire them are people who obey the laws in the first place. The bottom line is that a person hell-bent on crime will find the means to commit that crime regardless of what the law says, and the police are by and large a reactive force (they act after a crime has already been committed)- without a reliable protective force in place (and many, myself included, would be somewhat put off by any authority with that much power), the next best thing is a gun. There doesn't exist a single non-lethal or less-than-lethal defensive weapon or technique which has yet been able to rival a gun for the fast, decisive, and utterly final elimination of a threat. People have been known in extreme situations to shrug off pepper spray, tazers, and just about any hand-to-hand defensive move, but a bullet in the head stops anything- period. Yes, there are and always will be morons who slip through the cracks and use guns to do harm to the innocent- however, it is important to note that violent crime rates are lower overall (not just for gun crimes, but all violent crimes) in areas which have enacted right-to-carry legislation- whereas other areas which have enacted handgun bans or all-inclusive gun bans have some of the highest crime rates on record- places like Washington D.C. and New York, for example. Ever wonder why Sweden, a country where nearly every adult is armed and trained, has the lowest crime rate of any country in the world? There is no better deterrent to crime than death, as cold as that fact may be. Criminals are by and large selfish creatures by nature, and they stand to gain very little from a populace armed, willing, and able to defend against their actions.
I believe all guns should be pink, and restricted only to women. Not only are chicks with guns a turn on for some men, but seeing as women are the 'fairer' sex, they should be the ones who are heated. Plus, women tend rationalize their actions better than men (still scientifically debatable). If this guy were a lady, and wasn't a former NASA astronaut, I doubt he/she'd have done this.
Wow this was meant to be a lol thread where we all make fun of this stupid guy, and it becomes a debate, move it to heated topics and debates then lol.
I guess because guns are a serious and a sensitive subject...that's why people became all serious. Surely, this retard must be punished for what he did. Anyway, LOL.
Remember that 11 year old that got killed last week? A gun did that. Still support selling guns without a license now? That's what I thought.
Oblivion165 wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 12:09 I just bought my first shotgun from walmart a month ago, I was astonished that they let me buy buckshot with the shotgun! Thats just asking for a turn around robbery. Shotgun at Wallmart.... I was a little surprised at some banks offering you a gun when you choose one of their products but selling guns at Supermarkets is lunacy. I could perhaps understand it in some areas where people hunt but in other areas I just don't see the logic. I also sigh when people say 'I have a gun since it protects me from other people with guns' as I simply don't think that is a valid reason at all. Guns are all over the place yet you don't find everyone else with this same mindset. I'm not anti-guns since they have a use in sport and hunting but for protection I just don't think that is so.
NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 03:11 The single best deterrent to crime is an armed and trained general populace. Nothing stops aspiring felons quite like the knowledge that they'll more than likely end up dead if they act on their impulses- nothing. Guns are the proverbial genie in the bottle- there's no way to rid society of them, and if you enact legislation to prohibit gun ownership then the only people who will be unable to acquire them are people who obey the laws in the first place. The bottom line is that a person hell-bent on crime will find the means to commit that crime regardless of what the law says, and the police are by and large a reactive force (they act after a crime has already been committed)- without a reliable protective force in place (and many, myself included, would be somewhat put off by any authority with that much power), the next best thing is a gun. There doesn't exist a single non-lethal or less-than-lethal defensive weapon or technique which has yet been able to rival a gun for the fast, decisive, and utterly final elimination of a threat. People have been known in extreme situations to shrug off pepper spray, tazers, and just about any hand-to-hand defensive move, but a bullet in the head stops anything- period. Yes, there are and always will be morons who slip through the cracks and use guns to do harm to the innocent- however, it is important to note that violent crime rates are lower overall (not just for gun crimes, but all violent crimes) in areas which have enacted right-to-carry legislation- whereas other areas which have enacted handgun bans or all-inclusive gun bans have some of the highest crime rates on record- places like Washington D.C. and New York, for example. Ever wonder why Sweden, a country where nearly every adult is armed and trained, has the lowest crime rate of any country in the world? There is no better deterrent to crime than death, as cold as that fact may be. Criminals are by and large selfish creatures by nature, and they stand to gain very little from a populace armed, willing, and able to defend against their actions. Now, please tell me, that in my country, the Netherlands, you are safe? Unless you got a special license you can't get a gun, and that license only allows you to carry it in a special locked case between your home and the shooting club. Also, before you can get one they'll look into your (criminal) records etc, additionally, you can't get the gun until you have proven capable to use it properly, at the shooting range.
Actually with a test or licensce you can still kill people, just because you pass those requirments it doesnt mean your going to be a good person and not use them to kill others, in the USA they do a background check in gun shops and check your social security, you could come with a fake SS number and they will approve you.
AoBfrost wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 09:10 Actually with a test or licensce you can still kill people, just because you pass those requirments it doesnt mean your going to be a good person and not use them to kill others, in the USA they do a background check in gun shops and check your social security, you could come with a fake SS number and they will approve you. Err no. When the clerk of court or a license gun dealer does a background check the name given is always checked against their database. You wont just be able to put in another number because the computer will instantly flag it. Also the background check is done off of your drivers license, not your social security card.
Ryu Remember that 11 year old that got killed last week? A gun did that. Still support selling guns without a license now? Yup. My rights are inalienable, in my opinion. Isolated incidents are going to happen. Accidents happen. Should we rid of automobiles? They kill more innocent people per year than guns do. Still support manufacture of automobiles? Yes? That's what I thought. Edit: I would support having to own a gun license in order to purchase a weapon, but the license should be the equivalent of a driver's license. You have to know how to operate the gun, and know the laws regarding operation, but no background checks or anything more in-depth. Ryu That's what I thought. No, it's not.
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 14:21 Ryu Remember that 11 year old that got killed last week? A gun did that. Still support selling guns without a license now? Yup. My rights are inalienable, in my opinion. Isolated incidents are going to happen. Accidents happen. Should we rid of automobiles? They kill more innocent people per year than guns do. Still support manufacture of automobiles? Yes? That's what I thought. Edit: I would support having to own a gun license in order to purchase a weapon, but the license should be the equivalent of a driver's license. You have to know how to operate the gun, and know the laws regarding operation, but no background checks or anything more in-depth. Ryu That's what I thought. No, it's not. However, this WASN'T an accident. How many people get killed by a car by purpose and how many get killed by a gun by purpose.
Caveman wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 09:39 cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 14:21 Ryu Remember that 11 year old that got killed last week? A gun did that. Still support selling guns without a license now? Yup. My rights are inalienable, in my opinion. Isolated incidents are going to happen. Accidents happen. Should we rid of automobiles? They kill more innocent people per year than guns do. Still support manufacture of automobiles? Yes? That's what I thought. Edit: I would support having to own a gun license in order to purchase a weapon, but the license should be the equivalent of a driver's license. You have to know how to operate the gun, and know the laws regarding operation, but no background checks or anything more in-depth. Ryu That's what I thought. No, it's not. However, this WASN'T an accident. How many people get killed by a car by purpose and how many get killed by a gun by purpose. That's irrelevant. It's obvious that there are more murders by gun than automobile. That's not the issue, as NukeIt pointed out. Those who are doing the shooting are, generally, criminals. Those criminals don't purchase their guns legally. Eliminating the ability for a law-abiding citizen to own a gun doesn't stop the criminal from owning a gun. If we're talking about murders committed by people properly licensed for automobile and guns, I'd say the amount is about equal. People do maliciously run each other over in a fit of rage.
Well said, cheesesoda. I find it disgusting that people say guns should be removed because IT is causing problems. The gun did not commit the crime but the irresponsible idiots wielding it. No one seems to understand what individual responsibility is. Those who want guns removed because it kills people are simply ignoring the facts. Oh yeah...let's put the multi-billion dollar industry out of business because it automatically solves everyone's problems. How many kids end up dead after playing with guns? Whose fault is that? The gun manufacturers? BS...it is the fault of the idiot parents/guardians for not keeping their guns locked away out of sight and reach.
My liberal buddy understands that concept. :\ Micheal: If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns. Me: exactly Me: why don't more liberals understand that? Micheal: dunno Me: covering your eyes and ears does not make gun violence disappear Micheal: nope Me: "IF WE PRETEND THAT YOU CAN'T BUY A GUN, THEN GUN VIOLENCE DOES NOT EXIST" Micheal: Security through obscurity
I hate it when people quote other famous quotes without even an attempt at citation.
Yes I agree that its down to the person who has the fucking gun in his hand. The gun didn't pull its own trigger, however, to go into a shop and walk out 15 mins later with a pistol is STUPID. You sure as hell can't do that over here. From my understand I am a sane person. So if I lived in the US I could probably goto the shop and purchase a gun? Now I know im not going to walk out of the shop and hold some old granny for her purse that probably has like $10 in it. But if I was at home and lets say my best friend has been sleeping with my girl. I am fairly certain that the thought of shooting him would go through my mind a good few times, which could lead into something that I would later regret. If I didn't have the gun in the first place then the thought wouldn't have had been there. That is what im trying to say. Most of us here are sane normal people but if someone pushes the right buttons, god knows what will come over you.
5 year old boy can't sleep, goes down the stairs and grabs something to drink. Father hears something and thinks it's a burglar. Father A has a cell phone next to his bed Father B has a shotgun next to his bed Guess who has most risk of killing his own son, cheesesoda? And don't say this never happened before... oops: accident?
Caveman wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 10:32 But if I was at home and lets say my best friend has been sleeping with my girl. I am fairly certain that the thought of shooting him would go through my mind a good few times, which could lead into something that I would later regret. If I didn't have the gun in the first place then the thought wouldn't have had been there. Wait, so it's the gun's fault that you can't deal with your anger? Yes, let's blame the gun for that! This goes right back to my automobile argument. You could murder your friend with your car. By that argument, automobiles should be illegal. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you should. Just because I have a tongue doesn't mean I should go around licking people. Just because I have hair doesn't mean I should rip it out in a fit of rage. Let's shave everybody's heads and cut off their tongues! Yes, a gun would make it EASIER to kill your best friend, but if you want to kill him, you're going to do it regardless of what you have to use. Whether it be a car, bat, knife, your fists, or the HORRIBLE gun.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 10:45 5 year old boy can't sleep, goes down the stairs and grabs something to drink. Father hears something and thinks it's a burglar. Father A has a cell phone next to his bed Father B has a shotgun next to his bed Guess who has most risk of killing his own son, cheesesoda? And don't say this never happened before... oops: accident? Personal responsibility. One would think you would say, "I HAVE A GUN" to any intruder, not just fire blindly into the dark at some shadowy figure, especially if that shadowy figure is 4' tall.
You don't seem to understand, theres a point where personal responsablity isn't a factor anymore because you're so enraged. You don't think. (Yes this is your fault) but once you reach this point its kinda hard to stop and think. What im trying to say is, Guns are designed to kill people, cars aren't. I'd rather have someone beat the shit out of me because I pissed them off to the level of no return than to get shot by him because he has a gun that he just bought 15mins ago for a store.
If the guy is so mad he's not thinking, he won't just "beat the shit out of you." He will beat you to death. Or suffocate you. Or kill you in many other ways that don't involve a gun.
Caveman wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 10:56 You don't seem to understand, theres a point where personal responsablity isn't a factor anymore because you're so enraged. You don't think. (Yes this is your fault) but once you reach this point its kinda hard to stop and think. What im trying to say is, Guns are designed to kill people, cars aren't. I'd rather have someone beat the shit out of me because I pissed them off to the level of no return than to get shot by him because he has a gun that he just bought 15mins ago for a store. No, you don't understand the concept of personal responsibility, then. Your actions are your own REGARDLESS OF YOUR MENTAL STATE. Sure, it's more understandable why you would react a certain way in a situation, but it still doesn't change the fact that YOU did the act. Again, if we use your logic, automobiles could be used in the same fashion. What makes that any better? Because automobiles serves an alternate purpose? Guns server an alternate purpose than to murder people. They serve to protect others, and they're also great for recreation.
I have pistol that I carry in my pocket (recent mugging just one building over) that I've had since I was 13 and I haven't shot one round out of it in those 7 years. This is a very nice apartment complex and even it has the occasional crime. Some people walk around with guns like a kid with a walkie talkie. They think they have some power or authority and want to show it so they take any chance they can to use it. Any and all decent gun safety course cover those types of situations. They teach you how to keep your cool and use a gun safely. Now keep in mine that my handgun is very illegal in 3 ways, so that does make me hide the fact of ownership a lot more but never once shooting it in 7 years shows that I can handle myself and use a gun wisely. Big Note: Yes I have shot many, many other guns in my life. Growing up in Texas requires you to have a gun. When I was a kid the sheriffs office would even train kids on gun safety to ensure that the kids would be safe and that the parents would trust their kids with a weapon. Texas summers are like so: (Lake dallas Texas, just north of Dallas.) 113 degree summers and animals in order of quantity: Snakes, Scorpions and Tarantulas. You had to be on your toes and know how to use a gun incase you got in a situation that required one. The rules as I remember them: Ages 8 and under - No guns at all and adult required supervision just to play in the woods. Ages 9 - 11 BB Guns with a certain amount of power Ages 12 - 15 Pellet Guns Ages 16 and up - .22 Caliber Rifles, CB caps only. As long as your gun and age fit then you had no trouble from johnny law carrying them around your neighborhood or around the woods where us kids played. It was just the way of life. I don't know how many snakes I've killed as a kid but I never once shot one just to shoot, the high temperatures made them pissed off and they didn't mind chasing you to show you just how mad they really were. The other two seemed to always corner you in your own home. Scorpions are the worst, they are not afraid of you at all and they ALWAYS trap you somehow. EDIT: Oh and I forgot to mention that never once did I hear of a kid shooting another kid in our neighborhood. Snake bites and Scorpion stings out the ass but even as kids we all knew it was not a toy.
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 08:21 Isolated incidents are going to happen. Accidents happen. Who the fuck kills a 11 year old by accident and doesn't admit to it? It's obvious he was murdered. cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 08:21 Should we rid of automobiles? They kill more innocent people per year than guns do. Still support manufacture of automobiles? Obviously, Now, If people weren't retarded to drink alcohol and drive at the same time, them figures would be reduced alot. Also, Looking both ways and using traffic lights to cross the road helps alot, Unless you're an idiot and have a death wish. cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 08:21 Edit: I would support having to own a gun license in order to purchase a weapon, but the license should be the equivalent of a driver's license. You have to know how to operate the gun, and know the laws regarding operation, but no background checks or anything more in-depth. Okay, So a nursery shouldn't be allowed to do background checks on someone they're about to employee? no? The police shouldn't do background checks on people they're about to employee? You don't know who you're selling the gun to, Back ground checks can tell you a little about what the person could do with the weapon.
Starbuzz wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 15:50 Well said, cheesesoda. I find it disgusting that people say guns should be removed because IT is causing problems. The gun did not commit the crime but the irresponsible idiots wielding it. No one seems to understand what individual responsibility is. Those who want guns removed because it kills people are simply ignoring the facts. Oh yeah...let's put the multi-billion dollar industry out of business because it automatically solves everyone's problems. How many kids end up dead after playing with guns? Whose fault is that? The gun manufacturers? BS...it is the fault of the idiot parents/guardians for not keeping their guns locked away out of sight and reach. All I'm saying is this: in the USA, where every dumb fuck can get a gun, you have loads of accidents with guns. As if that's not bad enough, how often can you actually use a gun to protect yourself? I'm not talking about your home because, wtf do I care about some idiot that wants to steal my stuff? I surely wouldn't want to kill him. Of course, it might differ a bit on what he's taking, but as long as it isn't personal stuff, the insurance will pay. For me that's not worth the risk anyway. Besides, because everyone can get a gun, what makes you think the criminal doesn't have one? He has nothing to lose, as you might kill him. He'll now probably kill you first. On a side note: how often you get robbed when you're home? In the Netherlands you do have burglary of course, just like anywhere else. But not more then in other countries where you can easily legally get a gun. Also, you're saying that criminals can always get a gun. Perhaps this is true, but here you know that if someone is found to have a gun, he is a criminal and will get arrested. Also, in the USA there will be many many more guns, simply because everyone has one. Thus, the burglar we just mentioned can steal your gun, and there you go, another gun in criminal hands. on your last point: if you keep your gun safely locked away, how can you (quickly) use it when there is a situation you can solve with a gun? So one way or another, that doesn't work. Now if you want to kill innocent children, be my guest, as long as I don't have to be a part of it.
Ryu wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 12:09 cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 08:21 Isolated incidents are going to happen. Accidents happen. Who the fuck kills a 11 year old by accident and doesn't admit to it? It's obvious he was murdered. cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 08:21 Should we rid of automobiles? They kill more innocent people per year than guns do. Still support manufacture of automobiles? Obviously, Now, If people weren't retarded to drink alcohol and drive at the same time, them figures would be reduced alot. Also, Looking both ways and using traffic lights to cross the road helps alot, Unless you're an idiot and have a death wish. cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 08:21 Edit: I would support having to own a gun license in order to purchase a weapon, but the license should be the equivalent of a driver's license. You have to know how to operate the gun, and know the laws regarding operation, but no background checks or anything more in-depth. Okay, So a nursery shouldn't be allowed to do background checks on someone they're about to employee? no? The police shouldn't do background checks on people they're about to employee? You don't know who you're selling the gun to, Back ground checks can tell you a little about what the person could do with the weapon. You people suck. Let's take away all of my liberties because someone else might get hurt, and some people might do that purposely. Oh-fucking-well. It's life. Shit happens. Get the fuck over it and move on. Just because the government makes it law doesn't mean it changes anything, and it doesn't. Not by much, anyways. Business employing people is different than a business selling a product or service to consumers. If the business wants to ensure that their customers have a squeaky clean record, they should be able to do so. However, it's not the government's job to decide for the business. Again, the more people that own guns, the less violence is going to happen. If you have a 1 in 2 chance that you're going to encounter someone with a gun, are you going to be entirely confident in attacking that person, especially with bystanders with the same chance of owning a gun? I don't think so. As NukeIt said, criminals are selfish. They only care about themselves, so they're not going to do anything to put themselves in harms way. Sure, there's always going to be exceptions to the world, but wrapping the world up in bubble wrap isn't going to make the world any better. It's going to suffocate people, and it makes for a dull existence. If you want to live in a bubble wrap world, then do that to yourself, don't make my government do that to me when I can handle myself. I don't care if people can't handle themselves in the same manner I can. If they want to fuck with me, then I can deal with them. LEAVE MY LIBERTIES ALONE.
Ryu wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 13:09 I won't even bother. I wouldn't, either. Socialism cannot be logically promoted in real-world situations.
Well, The idea of one gun to every family sounds a tad bit too extreme to me. And I don't want to waste my time.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 17:12 Starbuzz wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 15:50 Well said, cheesesoda. I find it disgusting that people say guns should be removed because IT is causing problems. The gun did not commit the crime but the irresponsible idiots wielding it. No one seems to understand what individual responsibility is. Those who want guns removed because it kills people are simply ignoring the facts. Oh yeah...let's put the multi-billion dollar industry out of business because it automatically solves everyone's problems. How many kids end up dead after playing with guns? Whose fault is that? The gun manufacturers? BS...it is the fault of the idiot parents/guardians for not keeping their guns locked away out of sight and reach. All I'm saying is this: in the USA, where every dumb fuck can get a gun, you have loads of accidents with guns. As if that's not bad enough, how often can you actually use a gun to protect yourself? I'm not talking about your home because, wtf do I care about some idiot that wants to steal my stuff? I surely wouldn't want to kill him. Of course, it might differ a bit on what he's taking, but as long as it isn't personal stuff, the insurance will pay. For me that's not worth the risk anyway. Besides, because everyone can get a gun, what makes you think the criminal doesn't have one? He has nothing to lose, as you might kill him. He'll now probably kill you first. On a side note: how often you get robbed when you're home? In the Netherlands you do have burglary of course, just like anywhere else. But not more then in other countries where you can easily legally get a gun. Also, you're saying that criminals can always get a gun. Perhaps this is true, but here you know that if someone is found to have a gun, he is a criminal and will get arrested. Also, in the USA there will be many many more guns, simply because everyone has one. Thus, the burglar we just mentioned can steal your gun, and there you go, another gun in criminal hands. on your last point: if you keep your gun safely locked away, how can you (quickly) use it when there is a situation you can solve with a gun? So one way or another, that doesn't work. Now if you want to kill innocent children, be my guest, as long as I don't have to be a part of it. Well said. Cheesesoda, you're jumping the gun here (No pun intented). If you're trained in firearms and safety of a firearm then sure why not have a gun? But to beable to walk into a shop and say Hey man i'll have that pretty little number over there and then walk out the shop with it within 15mins is IDIOTIC. There should be like a 2 week waiting period so the store keeper can do whatever checks he needs to do, so he doesn't sell a gun to some fucked up prick that thinks its cool to shoot down a 11year old boy for no apparent reason. You don't like my opinion then screw you.
Ryu wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 13:13 Well, The idea of one gun to every family sounds a tad bit too extreme to me. And I don't want to waste my time. Every family being gun-toting rednecks is a tad extreme. Protecting yourself, by any means necessary, isn't. Would you consider every family having an alarm in their home to be extreme? Do you consider people carrying mace with them to be extreme? Protecting yourself and your property is not "extreme", it's logical. Owning a gun isn't any more extreme than that. It's just that people get these stupid, knee-jerk reactions to it. I'm completely sympathetic to these horrible stories of these accidents and horrible, conscious acts committed by people. I don't just turn the other way and pretend that doesn't exist, either. However, I'm not going to pretend that all can be fixed by taking liberties from others. Don't suffocate my life because of a few bad people and a few careless people. Yes, guns can be used for HORRIBLE acts. There are some really ruthless people out there, but they're criminals regardless of the law. If they want to harm you, they will. If they want a gun to do it, they will find a way to get a gun, and getting a gun illegally is a bit easier than getting one legally, whether or not you're law-abiding. Taking away my freedom from protecting myself with lethal force only helps out the criminals succeed. A gun is a great equalizer. A 4'6", 85lb woman toting a gun can effectively defend herself against a 6'5", 250lb attacker. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. If you're afraid of your children and friends of your children getting a hold of your gun, don't buy one. If you're afraid of accidentally discharging it against a friend, rather than a foe, (I bet you can guess what I'm about to say, can't you?...) don't buy one. I, however, want a gun, and I am fully prepared to take responsibility for anything that happens directly relating to my gun. A gun isn't necessarily for everyone. I don't expect everybody to like guns. However, I expect everybody to respect mine and others' decisions to live our lives by our own accord. Edit: Caveman, why should I have to wait? I could just as easily walk up to someone's house, buy their shitty car for $200, and then proceed to run over innocent pedestrians walking on the downtown sidewalks. I could go buy a PC from a local store, connect it to my internet connection, and proceed to use it maliciously against others. I could go buy a set of kitchen knives and go stab my ex-girlfriend because I happened to think of what she did to me x amount of years ago for x reason. I could go buy a baseball bat at my local store and proceed to smash car windshields because I'm pissed off at the world. I could go on, but I feel you get my point. Yes, a gun is traditionally more violent than any of what I just listed above. I won't deny that, but maybe it's not me who needs to have a different view of guns. Maybe it's everybody else who needs to realize that guns aren't causing crime. Yes, they're also more lethal than what I listed above, but a crime is a crime. If you want to maliciously attack someone or something, you're going to do it regardless of whether or not you have a gun. You have so many things to choose from to perform your criminal acts. Don't criminalize me because someone else is irresponsible, just as I'm not criminalizing you.
Quote: Yes, guns can be used for HORRIBLE acts. Plz explain me what else they can be used for? Killing a criminal is also a horrible act, no matter how much he may have deserved it.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 13:39 Quote: Yes, guns can be used for HORRIBLE acts. Plz explain me what else they can be used for? Killing a criminal is also a horrible act, no matter how much he may have deserved it. Recreation? It's fun to shoot stuff. Just like it's fun to set stuff on fire. I hardly think that shooting at clay targets would be considered to be a horrible act. Plus, guns are sexy in their own right, so they're nice showpieces. Edit: Starbuzz added hunting that I forgot. Also, don't forget that sometimes horrible acts are necessary in life. Just because it's not "nice" doesn't mean that it isn't needed. When I said "HORRIBLE acts", I meant unnecessary and evil actions. Protecting yourself is hardly unnecessary and evil.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 12:39 Quote: Yes, guns can be used for HORRIBLE acts. Plz explain me what else they can be used for? Killing a criminal is also a horrible act, no matter how much he may have deserved it. Well, we have no choice in this world. Out there, whoever we maybe and whatever religion, race, or nationality, we will always have an enemy who would want to do harm. Someone out there is our enemy and we ourselves are someone's enemy...that's the world. *waits for aliens to come and disarm the militaries thorough diplomacy* EDIT: And one must realize how nice it is to hunt, prepare, cook and eat your own food out in the wilderness. Nothing wrong with that. Don't complain unless you have experienced it!
Quote: You people suck. you too.
Surth wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 13:57 Quote: You people suck. you too. At least, I know how to respect your liberties. Something very few others respect. :\
Goztow wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 13:39 Quote: Yes, guns can be used for HORRIBLE acts. Plz explain me what else they can be used for? Killing a criminal is also a horrible act, no matter how much he may have deserved it. Target Practice Signaling for help Nail Driving Archeology Survival Flares You can even get your High School Diploma!
Goztow wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 13:39 Quote: Yes, guns can be used for HORRIBLE acts. Plz explain me what else they can be used for? Killing a criminal is also a horrible act, no matter how much he may have deserved it. Well a gun could be used to say, stop a guy from running, I have seen police shows where if orders will will try to shoot the criminals angle or foot to make him fall, it doesnt kill him, but it can be used to just injure him enough to where he can be caught.
On a practical basis, killing criminals prevents re-offending (in the most sure way possible) and helps to solve the impending over-population crisis. Sadly, humans insist on being impractical with life and emotions.
Caveman wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 15:38 Sorry but the law in the US is just fucked. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Go fuck yourself. nuff said.
Oblivion165 wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 20:28 Goztow wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 13:39 Quote: Yes, guns can be used for HORRIBLE acts. Plz explain me what else they can be used for? Killing a criminal is also a horrible act, no matter how much he may have deserved it. Target Practice Signaling for help Nail Driving Archeology Survival Flares You can even get your High School Diploma! Right, but that's where gun licenses are for. That doesn't explain why everyone should be able to get one. When I read these replies, I'm starting to find it bizar that I, not having a gun, am still in perfect health :-S.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 16:33 Oblivion165 wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 20:28 Goztow wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 13:39 Quote: Yes, guns can be used for HORRIBLE acts. Plz explain me what else they can be used for? Killing a criminal is also a horrible act, no matter how much he may have deserved it. Target Practice Signaling for help Nail Driving Archeology Survival Flares You can even get your High School Diploma! Right, but that's where gun licenses are for. That doesn't explain why everyone should be able to get one. When I read these replies, I'm starting to find it bizar that I, not having a gun, am still in perfect health :-S. I don't own a gun (yet), and I'm in perfect health. However, that has NOTHING to do with this argument. Quit trying to correlate stupid shit that doesn't matter. The fact is, just as anybody should be able to buy kitchen knives, cars, and tissues, people should be able to buy guns. There's no real logical argument against it, besides your knee-jerk, "OMG WUT IF DETH HAPENZ". Oh well. Shit happens.
Need dart guns instead, so you could paralize people who attack you instead of kill. Just enough for you to get the police. It doesn't matter if it causes less deaths than car accidents or whatever, IT STILL CAUSES DEATHS!
DarkDemin wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 21:10 Caveman wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 15:38 Sorry but the law in the US is just fucked. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Go fuck yourself. nuff said. Yeah you really have a good arguement there. Cheesesoda, from my understanding, you think that people shouldn't have to be put on a waiting list (Checkup list) to purchase a gun?
Caveman wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 17:24 DarkDemin wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 21:10 Caveman wrote on Mon, 10 September 2007 15:38 Sorry but the law in the US is just fucked. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Go fuck yourself. nuff said. Yeah you really have a good arguement there. Cheesesoda, from my understanding, you think that people shouldn't have to be put on a waiting list (Checkup list) to purchase a gun? Correct.
wow, i like this arguement.... enough bs. the world is an unsafe place. people are gonna have guns, people are gonna die, and theres nothing we can do about it! but i do think that one thing we CAN control is who we let have guns, and im not talking bout just average joe out there, im talking bout machine guns to anyone, and handguns to people who have already committed felonies, or are mentally unstable! and i am totally for my and your rights, but we gotta get some kind of control!
Mentally stable I can see restricting access to, but you don't give mentally unstable people operator (driver's) licenses, either. My past behavior, while is somewhat of an indication of my future behavior, does not define my future behavior. If I've done my time and am now given the chance to be a law-abiding citizen, I don't feel that I should be prevented from buying weapons. To some extent, I do believe in preventing felons from purchasing guns. As long as the crime is severe enough to warrant such a thing. Regardless, this doesn't require a background check. If the person has his or her weapon license revoked, they wouldn't be able to purchase a weapon. Just as someone without their ID would be unable to purchase tobacco, alcohol, lottery tickets, pornography, etc... No privacy is invaded. No waiting period. Some comfort knowing a serial killer won't have legal access (but again, will still have illegal access) to weapons.
I know this has been responded to already, but it was just so inanely stupid that I couldn't resist. Sorry if I drag things backwards a bit. Quote: All I'm saying is this: in the USA, where every dumb fuck can get a gun, Firstly, not "every dumb fuck" can buy a gun (legally). No matter where you go in the US, no matter what sort of gun you aim to buy (excepting fully automatic, which requires a special federal permit), when you select your purchase and fill out the on-site paperwork, the dealer picks up their phone. In every state but one, so far as I know, they call a toll-free number to an FBI hotline, and the FBI performs a background check against a national database of felons, loonies, and anyone else who ought not have that gun. This background check is, as one would expect in the twenty-first fucking century, a very quick procedure. It doesn't require the three-day wait periods some states have in place, and it certainly doesn't require weeks. Thusly, by the time the dealer hangs up the phone, they know whether or not you are legally permitted to own a gun. They then look at the paperwork to make sure you haven't omitted anything they may have been informed of during said phone call. In the one state where the dealer does not call the FBI directly (New Jersey), the dealer instead calls the State Police, who then call the FBI- this is done so that the state government can grub $15 from every gun purchase, not for any security reason. Still think every dumb fuck can get a gun (legally)? Quote: you have loads of accidents with guns. As if that's not bad enough, how often can you actually use a gun to protect yourself? I'm not talking about your home because, wtf do I care about some idiot that wants to steal my stuff? I surely wouldn't want to kill him. Of course, it might differ a bit on what he's taking, but as long as it isn't personal stuff, the insurance will pay. For me that's not worth the risk anyway. Besides, because everyone can get a gun, what makes you think the criminal doesn't have one? He has nothing to lose, as you might kill him. He'll now probably kill you first. On a side note: how often you get robbed when you're home? Here's the rub, skippy: if there's a criminal in your home, they are a threat to anyone in the house. Sure, youc an say "well, they'll go after my stuff first," but you're not a psychic and neither am I- there is no way of knowing what that asshole means to do when they break and enter. While there are a great many people over here who would sadly agree with you, many more are of the opinion that once a criminal violates your home, they are already a threat and their life is forfeit. Additionally, robberies that happen when you aren't home aren't the fucking point. The issue here is what you choose to do when there is a confrontation. And if that criminal is armed, they might get off the first shot if you are also armed. However, they will get off the first shot if you aren't. I'd rather not die because some tool like you decided that I didn't have a right to defend myself and my loved ones by any means necessary- and that makes me damned glad you aren't writing the laws over here. Quote: In the Netherlands you do have burglary of course, just like anywhere else. But not more then in other countries where you can easily legally get a gun. I really have neither the time nor the patience to sift through crime statistics now, so I'll just leave that be. I'll come back to this one if I feel up to it later. Quote: Also, you're saying that criminals can always get a gun. Perhaps this is true, but here you know that if someone is found to have a gun, he is a criminal and will get arrested. This is a fallacious argument. The analog here would be to say that you know a person is a criminal because they were found carrying marijuana- no shit, Sherlock! They're committing a crime because they're carrying something that is illegal. The problem is that you can't prove that they intended to do anything else illegal using said prohibited thing. That's why if you get caught with weed here you only get charged with possession, and if you get caught with an illegal gun you get charged only with possession and not with "intended homicide." Also, in order to arrest a criminal you have to catch them first. Guns are, as you may or may not have heard, somewhat easily concealed. And, as you may or may not have figured out by now, it is rather more difficult to impose your will on somebody who is armed. Would a desperate criminal (hypothetically, of course) always just give up with an "oop, you caught me- good show!" when they have the means to violently resist? You're assuming an awful lot here, and assumptions evidence do not make. At any rate, the fact remains that said hypothetical criminal does have a gun, and they have ample opportunity to squeeze off a few at somebody before the police- hypothetically- take them down (I don't know how well armed your boys in blue are), and if nobody else is armed then he can do so with impunity. Quote: Also, in the USA there will be many many more guns, simply because everyone has one. Thus, the burglar we just mentioned can steal your gun, and there you go, another gun in criminal hands. Another stupid, stupid, uninformed, and stupid statement. No, everyone in the US does not have a gun. Some of my best friends are anti-gun, and even among those of my friends who support gun rights only a handful actually own one. Hell, my mother doesn't own a gun, even though my father and my sister and I all do (and more than one each at that). That alone tells me that you've never even bothered to glance at anything that backs up your conclusions; how the hell can you pretend to 'know' what the situation is over here when you can't be arsed to look up even the basic facts? No, I can't remember the exact numbers offhand- but the number of gun owners in this country adds up to ~1/3 of our total population, IIRC. The number of guns owned is much higher, because many people who own guns own more than one. Secondly, you make the assumption that the criminal will get their hands on your weapon before you can use it. How so, exactly? When using a weapon for home defense, it is common practice to keep that weapon in a small combination-locked strongbox beside your bed. To make an assumption of my own (a necessary one, if we are to presume that there will be a confrontation at all), you will wake up when you hear the criminal enter your home. Are you willing to argue that the criminal can reach your room, guess at your combo, and extract your gun before you can do the same? Bullshit. In the real world, it happens this way- you wake up to the sound of somebody breaking in. You punch/dial in the code and pick up your gun and ammo, and load it. This takes no more than a few seconds' time, if you've had the good sense to practice. This is possible in all situations unless the criminal entered your room directly from the outside, in which case it is usually more advisable to use a melee weapon such as a baseball bat which is quicker to pick up and easier to use at point-blank range. Or did you, perhaps, think that the gun would be the only means a well-prepared homeowner would have available to defend their home with? Quote: on your last point: if you keep your gun safely locked away, how can you (quickly) use it when there is a situation you can solve with a gun? See above. Also, acquire a carry permit in order to deal with situations outside the home (in those states which require it). Quote: So one way or another, that doesn't work. Now if you want to kill innocent children, be my guest, as long as I don't have to be a part of it. That, my uninformed friend, is a statement which provides nothing but a quick emotional jab to your arguments. Not only is it assuming quite a bit. For starters, that you would keep a loaded weapon where a child could easily get at it, that you wouldn't make any attempt to educate said child so that they know not to point the bloody thing at their own self, or that you would be so stupid as to neglect everything you've ever learned about gun safety and point it anywhere but up, down, or at your intended target- even when unloaded- to say nothing of the implicit assumption that every person who owns a gun will go around intentionally shooting children.
Quote: The fact is, just as anybody should be able to buy kitchen knives, cars, and tissues, people should be able to buy guns. There's no real logical argument against it, besides your knee-jerk, "OMG WUT IF DETH HAPENZ". Oh well. Shit happens. Kitchen Knives and Cars have a real use (cut bread/drive to grandma who lives 100 miles away) - A gun hasnt. I dont think the Guns you buy in a Supermarket or something are used to go hunting.
Surth wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 11:16 Quote: The fact is, just as anybody should be able to buy kitchen knives, cars, and tissues, people should be able to buy guns. There's no real logical argument against it, besides your knee-jerk, "OMG WUT IF DETH HAPENZ". Oh well. Shit happens. Kitchen Knives and Cars have a real use (cut bread/drive to grandma who lives 100 miles away) - A gun hasnt. I dont think the Guns you buy in a Supermarket or something are used to go hunting. No, you're right. The guns in the SPORTING GOODS sections and next to the HUNTING gear are obviously NOT used for hunting. No fucking way in Hell... Edit: NukeIt, let me add onto what you said about the whole "it's just stuff" argument that was so blatantly stupid. I don't give a flying fuck if someone just wants my stuff. That's MY stuff. That's stuff I earned. If I can defend said property, why wouldn't I? Sure, I could leave it to the insurance companies to replace the items, but then that just makes everybody else's interest rates go up, and I'm not that selfish. In fact, I bet if everybody owned a gun, insurance rates would go down, most likely. So owning a gun not only protects me, my family, my possessions, but also has the potential save me and others money in the long run. Another reason why that's stupid. Just because MOST home invasions are robberies doesn't mean that ALL are. What if someone intends to hurt you? Then what? You can't tell the would-be attacker, "I DIDN'T EXPECT TO BE HARMED, SO I DIDN'T HAVE A GUN" and expect him to turn around and leave your house. Speaking of that, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeo05uPMmn4 I love that video.
Cheesesoda, your reasoning starts from the POV that the majority of people know what they're doing most of the time. Unfortunately, this just isn't true.
In some circumstances it's as easy, or even easier to kill someone with a kitchen knife, yet they aren't banned. So if you support banning guns, you might as well (by extension) kill anything that could injure someone.
CarrierII wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:26 In some circumstances it's as easy, or even easier to kill someone with a kitchen knife, yet they aren't banned. So if you support banning guns, you might as well (by extension) kill anything that could injure someone. Tell me, what other use have guns then kill/harm people/animals or target practise? (Target practise, hmm for what, doesn't have any use unless you are planning to fire at someone/some animal) Now, tell me what uses kitchen knifes have? Not just killing/injuring someone, that's for sure. Also, about guns being in the sports department, that's not weird, they can't put it in the mutilation/killing department.
There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that, you need guns for surround people when taking them down (if you are a police officer), you need guns to tell the speed of fast cars, theres more uses, but since i'm not into guns, I dont know, but just because the main uses are for the things said previously, it doesnt mean they should be banned, i'm all for people owning guns, as long as they dont abuse it, but heck, you cant read minds so you never know how will crack and use them, if we ban guns, then a knife or cross bow will start becomming common weapon, you want to ban knives? then bann kitchens knives to, screw cooking, maybe we'll eat out everyday at fancy italian places and just let them own knives since we all know for 100% sure they wont use them for injustice. Ya i went a bit off topic, but the point if, if you ban guns from people, then ban them all, because there have been police cases in the past where police misuse a gun, heck even if you do ban guns, people will still OWN them, the black market, illegal imports, people know where to buy guns.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 11:43 CarrierII wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:26 In some circumstances it's as easy, or even easier to kill someone with a kitchen knife, yet they aren't banned. So if you support banning guns, you might as well (by extension) kill anything that could injure someone. Tell me, what other use have guns then kill/harm people/animals or target practise? (Target practise, hmm for what, doesn't have any use unless you are planning to fire at someone/some animal) Now, tell me what uses kitchen knifes have? Not just killing/injuring someone, that's for sure. Also, about guns being in the sports department, that's not weird, they can't put it in the mutilation/killing department. Why can't firing guns be for sport? I never once shot a BB gun thinking, "WOW, I COULD USE THIS SKILL TO SHOOT PEOPLE!" Shooting guns is purely for entertainment. Just like pyrotechnics. They serve no purpose other than "ooooo ahhhhhhhhh". LET'S BAN EVERYTHING YOU DEEM TO BE POINTLESS. THAT MAKES SENSE! Are you trying to pull shit out of your ass? If so, it's working quite wonderfully. The point in me saying that was he claimed that the guns in the supermarkets aren't used for hunting. He obviously ignores logic slapping him in the face.
AoBfrost wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:51 There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that, you need guns for surround people when taking them down (if you are a police officer), you need guns to tell the speed of fast cars, theres more uses, but since i'm not into guns, I dont know, but just because the main uses are for the things said previously, it doesnt mean they should be banned, i'm all for people owning guns, as long as they dont abuse it, but heck, you cant read minds so you never know how will crack and use them, if we ban guns, then a knife or cross bow will start becomming common weapon, you want to ban knives? then bann kitchens knives to, screw cooking, maybe we'll eat out everyday at fancy italian places and just let them own knives since we all know for 100% sure they wont use them for injustice. Ya i went a bit off topic, but the point if, if you ban guns from people, then ban them all, because there have been police cases in the past where police misuse a gun, heck even if you do ban guns, people will still OWN them, the black market, illegal imports, people know where to buy guns. I stopped reading after "There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that,". I had hoped you had a little more intelligence. Now I do see why you are pro-guns. It's a bit of a primitive thing, where you will probably feel right at home.
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:53 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 11:43 CarrierII wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:26 In some circumstances it's as easy, or even easier to kill someone with a kitchen knife, yet they aren't banned. So if you support banning guns, you might as well (by extension) kill anything that could injure someone. Tell me, what other use have guns then kill/harm people/animals or target practise? (Target practise, hmm for what, doesn't have any use unless you are planning to fire at someone/some animal) Now, tell me what uses kitchen knifes have? Not just killing/injuring someone, that's for sure. Also, about guns being in the sports department, that's not weird, they can't put it in the mutilation/killing department. Why can't firing guns be for sport? I never once shot a BB gun thinking, "WOW, I COULD USE THIS SKILL TO SHOOT PEOPLE!" Shooting guns is purely for entertainment. Just like pyrotechnics. They serve no purpose other than "ooooo ahhhhhhhhh". LET'S BAN EVERYTHING YOU DEEM TO BE POINTLESS. THAT MAKES SENSE! Are you trying to pull shit out of your ass? If so, it's working quite wonderfully. The point in me saying that was he claimed that the guns in the supermarkets aren't used for hunting. He obviously ignores logic slapping him in the face. Well, if guns are purely for entertainment, why not get rid of the guns and just sell bbguns/paintball guns. Same fun, less deaths.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 11:54 AoBfrost wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:51 There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that, you need guns for surround people when taking them down (if you are a police officer), you need guns to tell the speed of fast cars, theres more uses, but since i'm not into guns, I dont know, but just because the main uses are for the things said previously, it doesnt mean they should be banned, i'm all for people owning guns, as long as they dont abuse it, but heck, you cant read minds so you never know how will crack and use them, if we ban guns, then a knife or cross bow will start becomming common weapon, you want to ban knives? then bann kitchens knives to, screw cooking, maybe we'll eat out everyday at fancy italian places and just let them own knives since we all know for 100% sure they wont use them for injustice. Ya i went a bit off topic, but the point if, if you ban guns from people, then ban them all, because there have been police cases in the past where police misuse a gun, heck even if you do ban guns, people will still OWN them, the black market, illegal imports, people know where to buy guns. I stopped reading after "There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that,". I had hoped you had a little more intelligence. Now I do see why you are pro-guns. It's a bit of a primitive thing, where you will probably feel right at home. Wow, you're quite the arrogant son of a bitch, aren't you? Ever stop to think that just because you deem something pointless doesn't make it pointless to everybody else? I feel that your opinion is pointless, but I can't help but to think you feel otherwise. Edit: Because they're not the same. BB guns are boring. I want something with more power. Why light a match when you can light a roman candle? Edit2: Also, BB guns fail at home security. Shooting someone with small, copper BBs isn't going to stop an attacker, especially someone hellbent on harming you. So not only do guns serve the purpose for entertainment and show, but also for protection as we've been trying to beat into your empty heads.
Some people use guns for target practice but nor for killing, they use it for pleasure and personal entertainment, they dont have the intent to kill someone, maybe hunting animals, but they dont have intent to kill usually, just the feeling of owning a gun and firing it at something gives them a spark of enjoyment, though dangerous, next i'd like to see knives be banned, some people like collecting them for fun, though dangerous, just like guns, they dont have the intent to kill (usually, unless you plan too and are crazy)
cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:55 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 11:54 AoBfrost wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:51 There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that, you need guns for surround people when taking them down (if you are a police officer), you need guns to tell the speed of fast cars, theres more uses, but since i'm not into guns, I dont know, but just because the main uses are for the things said previously, it doesnt mean they should be banned, i'm all for people owning guns, as long as they dont abuse it, but heck, you cant read minds so you never know how will crack and use them, if we ban guns, then a knife or cross bow will start becomming common weapon, you want to ban knives? then bann kitchens knives to, screw cooking, maybe we'll eat out everyday at fancy italian places and just let them own knives since we all know for 100% sure they wont use them for injustice. Ya i went a bit off topic, but the point if, if you ban guns from people, then ban them all, because there have been police cases in the past where police misuse a gun, heck even if you do ban guns, people will still OWN them, the black market, illegal imports, people know where to buy guns. I stopped reading after "There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that,". I had hoped you had a little more intelligence. Now I do see why you are pro-guns. It's a bit of a primitive thing, where you will probably feel right at home. Wow, you're quite the arrogant son of a bitch, aren't you? Ever stop to think that just because you deem something pointless doesn't make it pointless to everybody else? I feel that your opinion is pointless, but I can't help but to think you feel otherwise. Edit: Because they're not the same. BB guns are boring. I want something with more power. Why light a match when you can light a roman candle? Edit2: Also, BB guns fail at home security. Shooting someone with small, copper BBs isn't going to stop an attacker, especially someone hellbent on harming you. So not only do guns serve the purpose for entertainment and show, but also for protection as we've been trying to beat into your empty heads. Tell me why would a criminal harm you? Yes he does want to stel your stuff and yes I know that sucks, but unless you go waiving with a gun, there is no reason for the criminal to actually harm you. He might run and get away, resuming you caught him in the act. Also, how often have you been robbed in your own home? I have been robbed once, while we where on vacation, so no gun could've stopped the criminal. How many times have you been robbed and got the chance to respond on it (with or without gun, that doesn't matter now)? You say you like real guns more then BBguns/ paintball guns because they have more power, well ok, but what can you do with that power? With the proposed bb/paintball gun you can actually fire on your mates and have a good time together. Something tells me that though you can point a real gun at your mates, you won't have a good time then.
AoBfrost wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:56 Some people use guns for target practice but nor for killing, they use it for pleasure and personal entertainment, they dont have the intent to kill someone, maybe hunting animals, but they dont have intent to kill usually, just the feeling of owning a gun and firing it at something gives them a spark of enjoyment, though dangerous, next i'd like to see knives be banned, some people like collecting them for fun, though dangerous, just like guns, they dont have the intent to kill (usually, unless you plan too and are crazy) I'm not saying noone is allowed to have a gun, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be sold so easily. I mean, for a hunter it's pretty logical to have a gun, but let the hunter be registered, and check him etc, before selling him a gun. With checking him I also mean, give him a course on how to handle the weapon, how to store it, and let him do this for a month or so. Perhaps make him do a psychological test before he actually gets the gun.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 12:44 cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:55 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 11:54 AoBfrost wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:51 There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that, you need guns for surround people when taking them down (if you are a police officer), you need guns to tell the speed of fast cars, theres more uses, but since i'm not into guns, I dont know, but just because the main uses are for the things said previously, it doesnt mean they should be banned, i'm all for people owning guns, as long as they dont abuse it, but heck, you cant read minds so you never know how will crack and use them, if we ban guns, then a knife or cross bow will start becomming common weapon, you want to ban knives? then bann kitchens knives to, screw cooking, maybe we'll eat out everyday at fancy italian places and just let them own knives since we all know for 100% sure they wont use them for injustice. Ya i went a bit off topic, but the point if, if you ban guns from people, then ban them all, because there have been police cases in the past where police misuse a gun, heck even if you do ban guns, people will still OWN them, the black market, illegal imports, people know where to buy guns. I stopped reading after "There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that,". I had hoped you had a little more intelligence. Now I do see why you are pro-guns. It's a bit of a primitive thing, where you will probably feel right at home. Wow, you're quite the arrogant son of a bitch, aren't you? Ever stop to think that just because you deem something pointless doesn't make it pointless to everybody else? I feel that your opinion is pointless, but I can't help but to think you feel otherwise. Edit: Because they're not the same. BB guns are boring. I want something with more power. Why light a match when you can light a roman candle? Edit2: Also, BB guns fail at home security. Shooting someone with small, copper BBs isn't going to stop an attacker, especially someone hellbent on harming you. So not only do guns serve the purpose for entertainment and show, but also for protection as we've been trying to beat into your empty heads. Tell me why would a criminal harm you? Yes he does want to stel your stuff and yes I know that sucks, but unless you go waiving with a gun, there is no reason for the criminal to actually harm you. He might run and get away, resuming you caught him in the act. Also, how often have you been robbed in your own home? I have been robbed once, while we where on vacation, so no gun could've stopped the criminal. How many times have you been robbed and got the chance to respond on it (with or without gun, that doesn't matter now)? You say you like real guns more then BBguns/ paintball guns because they have more power, well ok, but what can you do with that power? With the proposed bb/paintball gun you can actually fire on your mates and have a good time together. Something tells me that though you can point a real gun at your mates, you won't have a good time then. Up until 2005, I could have said, "I never have been in a car accident, so why would I need car insurance". Well, August 2005 explains why... Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't. Why do I have to fire a gun at someone to have fun? It's fun shooting at targets. Sure, paintball guns are fun, too, but it's quite a bit different. As far as the whole psychological thing goes... at the very most someone needs to read up on gun handling, take a test, and be issued a license for it. I don't feel background checks are necessary.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 11:54 AoBfrost wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:51 There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that, you need guns for surround people when taking them down (if you are a police officer), you need guns to tell the speed of fast cars, theres more uses, but since i'm not into guns, I dont know, but just because the main uses are for the things said previously, it doesnt mean they should be banned, i'm all for people owning guns, as long as they dont abuse it, but heck, you cant read minds so you never know how will crack and use them, if we ban guns, then a knife or cross bow will start becomming common weapon, you want to ban knives? then bann kitchens knives to, screw cooking, maybe we'll eat out everyday at fancy italian places and just let them own knives since we all know for 100% sure they wont use them for injustice. Ya i went a bit off topic, but the point if, if you ban guns from people, then ban them all, because there have been police cases in the past where police misuse a gun, heck even if you do ban guns, people will still OWN them, the black market, illegal imports, people know where to buy guns. I stopped reading after "There are many uses, such as starting the horse/dog races, you need a gun for that,". I had hoped you had a little more intelligence. Now I do see why you are pro-guns. It's a bit of a primitive thing, where you will probably feel right at home. Wow, it seems those who don't like something want to force it onto everyone else, how smart and fair that is, yes I may seem to have sounded retarded in that area, but still I proved a point and a point is still a point, you challenged us to come up with more uses and I did, and for lashing at me like that for answering your question, it shows how patience and intelligent you really are. Plus there was some useful arguments after I said "horse/dog" thing, but like a lot of people I guess, their too arrogant to read 3 more sentences just because they cant agree with someone else's view.
Quote: Tell me why would a criminal harm you? Yes he does want to stel your stuff and yes I know that sucks, but unless you go waiving with a gun, there is no reason for the criminal to actually harm you. He might run and get away, resuming you caught him in the act. Sweet merciful stars- I can understand most of the reasons why so many people want to outlaw guns- just because they're wrong doesn't mean that every reason given in support of that position is automatically bad. However, this just has to take the cake as the single dumbest thing I've seen today. Do you honestly believe that violent crime doesn't happen in the absence of guns? Right, because a criminal will just leave you alone whilst robbing you blind, as long as you aren't armed? Wake the hell up! Do you know what you are when you are in the house while it is being robbed? A witness, that's what. Criminals don't like witnesses. Criminals like to get away clean. If you confront a criminal in your home without a weapon, you run the very real risk of being killed just because you were there. Allow me to clear a few things up- First off, you don't "wave a gun around." That defeats the purpose of the tool. If you draw your weapon, you fire it- period, end of discussion. If you don't have a reason to fire it, you don't pull it out in the first place. A person whipping out their handgun and pointing it at a burglar while dialing 911 with the other hand? That happens almost never in the real world. Getting caught in the act of committing a felony is more often than not plenty to push someone over the edge to a violent reaction, and they're not going to just sit down and wait for the cops. Every second you have that weapon out and don't fire it is another second in which the other guy could make an attempt at either grabbing it or pulling a weapon of his own- and it only takes a moment's lapse in attention for him to gain that opportunity. Even if you manage to sneak up behind that burglar- the sudden sound of your voice is even more likely to cause him to whip around with a weapon of his own. If someone has taken it upon theirself to invade your home, you assume the worst and react accordingly. If they happen to survive, that's great- but anything less than a decisive, violent reaction on the part of the homeowner puts everyone in danger. You put the bastard on the floor, then you make sure they are unable to respond in kind, then you call the cops. Whether you do that with a bat, or a knife, or a gun, you just do it. None of this "stop, thief!" shit- that only works in movies. Second, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, you cannot assume that any given criminal- be they a burgler or some twer trying to mug you in an alley- is going to leave you alone after taking your stuff. Hell, you can't even assume that they're after your stuff int he first place. That attitude will get you killed in those situations. Now, however revolting the thought of taking another person's life may be- and I can't say it's something I ever want to think about- it comes down to a simple choice- their life, or yours. Seriously now, do you hold a criminal's life above your own, above the lives of the people you care about? If you had no way out, would you sit by and let that criminal do you and your loved ones harm because you didn't want to have blood on your hands? Yes, it's a shitty choice, but as far as I- and a great many others, though sadly not everyone- am concerned, one person's rights stop dead where another's begin. Once you do harm to others by intent, you sacrifice your rights. That's the logic behind the criminal justice system, anyway, and it ought to apply all the time- to everyone. If you threaten another person's life- and please bear in mind that a victim has no way of knowing what their assailant intends to do until after the criminal has done the deed- you lose the right to your own. If you were to threaten any one of my friends, or my family, or if you broke into my home, I would kill you to defend them and myself because you had no right to act against me and mine. I would hate myself for it every day for the rest of my life, but I would do it, and I would do it a second time to a second person it the need arose. I believe, with utter conviction, that it is not the availability of weapons which leads people to be violent. It is not the prevalence of violence in the media, or any other factor than this: society as a whole, across most of the world, consists of people who are unwilling to take action to protect anyone's interests but their own. That allows a few predatory individuals to take advantage of anyone they perceive as weak, because they know most of humanity has neither the will nor the ability to do anything about it. I guarantee that crime would all but vanish if we could just persuade the mass to enact laws enabling people to act in each others' defense- but that will never happen. It will never happen because the majority of humanity would rather pretend that they are above violence of any sort, that they would not resort to such measures and therefore that others would not act violently towards them. Bullshit. The only way to defend against violence is to be willing and able to be violent if the need arises. Violence is the only argument some folks will listen to- and that's just the plain truth. Hate guns all you want, but that won't change the simple fact that when you are faced with an immediate danger- any immediate danger into which you are placed by another being, human or otherwise, be it a home invasion or a mugging or a hold-up or whatever else your mind can conceive- the best possible defense is a gun and the training to use it properly. No one is arguing that we issue guns to every single person on the planet- but there are some important things to keep in mind: - In the US at least, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, unless you are proven to have committed a crime or have a serious mental defect, you are competent in the eyes of the law and therefore have the right to own a gun. That is law, as laid down hundreds of years ago and thankfully held more or less intact since. - Guns are a weapon, but ultimately there is a person behind that weapon. The weapon does not think or act for itself. There is no way for a gun to 'just go off' without some human tampering on some level or another. By all means, enact legislation that ensures people are safely able to handle that weapon, but do not make people pay out the ass for that training (as is presently required) and do not ever call the weapon 'dangerous.' There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, only dangerous people (by incompetence or intent). - Technology, as a rule, does not regress, barring a massive societal collapse (i.e. the Roman Empire). For that reason, guns will not go away. - Prohibitions don't work. A determined person can make a gun out of materials that can be bought in a hardware store, crude as that gun may turn out- but more likely they will track down a black market dealer and buy one. As long as there is a use for a weapon, it will be provided somehow, by legal or illegal means. This is a fact, the simple law of supply and demand. - The advantage always goes to whomever has the more effective weapon. Always. A person with a gun will always be at an advantage over a person without. Thus, the only way to place yourself on an equal footing with all potential threats (short of someone setting off a bomb) is to have a gun of your own- and more than that, to carry it responsibly.
NukeIt15 wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 14:28 I believe, with utter conviction, that it is not the availability of weapons which leads people to be violent. It is not the prevalence of violence in the media, or any other factor than this: society as a whole, across most of the world, consists of people who are unwilling to take action to protect anyone's interests but their own. That allows a few predatory individuals to take advantage of anyone they perceive as weak, because they know most of humanity has neither the will nor the ability to do anything about it. I guarantee that crime would all but vanish if we could just persuade the mass to enact laws enabling people to act in each others' defense- but that will never happen. It will never happen because the majority of humanity would rather pretend that they are above violence of any sort, that they would not resort to such measures and therefore that others would not act violently towards them. Bullshit. I completely agree. Even in the animal kingdom, animals seek to do harm against others. Mostly it's territorial or for protection, but it still happens. Violence is inevitable. The only way to combat violence is for there to be a threat of violence. Quite frankly, just about anything can be used for violence. Rocks, glass, baseball bats, guns, knives, cars, razors, scissors, lamps, plates, water, arms, legs, hands, feet, teeth, and pillows are all things that have been used to harm people. It's just impossible to remove any threat of violence. Sure, you can say that banning guns would make it one less thing available, but if you're going to kill someone, you'll do it with or without guns. Plus, as we've argued and shown SEVERAL times in this thread, guns are great for protection. Why did the Cold War not progress further than it did? While some may consider this ideology to be absurd, I fully believe that M.A.D. is the reasoning why things didn't progress. The threat of destruction was enough to keep destruction from happening.
So what's the deal in America? If I become a US citizen could I buy a handgun and walk about with it? If I had a holster and not just in the back of my jeans like some "home-boy". Can I walk into a shop wearing my gun in the holster and do my shopping, or is that store policy? Do I have to have it locked in a room and can only use it if some turd walks in? How many can I have, and how many can I have on my persons at any one time? I'm guessing it's different for every state, so what's the deal in the most g"gun friendly" state.
In virginia they are the most gun friendly, their proud of their guns, tons of hunters, or enthusiest travel there just to buy guns because of low prices, and well...it's just a popular spot, plus the craze there, it's easier to buy a gun.......why do you want all this info though? thinking of going on a rampage?
He's just curious about the law.
AoBfrost wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 18:40 In virginia they are the most gun friendly, their proud of their guns, tons of hunters, or enthusiest travel there just to buy guns because of low prices, and well...it's just a popular spot, plus the craze there, it's easier to buy a gun.......why do you want all this info though? thinking of going on a rampage? I can't let some gook have a higher body count than a white man... I wonder if I can get a 100:1 k/d ratio.
This thread reeks of ignorance. At least a few individuals understand what they're talking about. Why is personal responsibility such a difficult thing for some people to understand? Your actions are your own, period. If you shoot someone, it's not the firearm's fault, it's yours. My mother has a concealed weapons permit and has had it for almost a year and a half now. She had to go through quite a few classes to get it as well. Now, guess how many people she has shot so far? I'll give you a hint, it starts with the letter "Z", and ends with "ero".
Thirty?
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 04:58 Thirty? rofl ididot
scarabguy wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 11:52 CarrierII wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 04:58 Thirty? rofl ididot No, you're the idiot in this case.
What would you happen if you shoot a a thief in the face while he is going about his business? You don't know if this person is armed or not they could well have nothing on them at all and I would have thought murder is a worse crime than stealing a DVD player to buy some crack. I think the idea of using a gun for protection is completely flawed. On the other hand I'm not expecting you to sit him down and bake him some muffins. If someone comes in your house they are a threat therefore you would do anything you can to get them out of your property. I personally think that if someone came into my house I WOULD use a weapon (such as a Cricket or Baseball bat) not because I need it but because it is there. If I had a gun I feel is it likely that I would turn the gun on them without a moments hesitation. I wouldn't do it because I want to but because I could. You would be thinking with adrenalin and not your brain. Before anyone says that I have no idea what a gun is I have done quite a bit of target shooting and was considering getting a rifle myself but decided not to. With that in mind evidently I think firearms in sport and hunting are completely acceptable but only if they have sufficient regulation.
Your use of common sense is as lacking as your use of the comma. If someone is threatening your family, you blast them with a Sig 40 cal.