Quake3World

Hey everyone...EfOOL is getting a gun.

Geebs wrote:I think that there's a bit of a cultural difference in this thread whereby the non-Americans just fundamentally find the idea of going around armed very paranoiac and depressing because, TBH, the chance of being affected by violent crime in the US is vanishingly small compared to perceived risk. Especially the whole armed-society-is-a-polite-society thing - people should be polite DESPITE being armed, not because of.

The other point us eurofags don't like is that cannoning up is always easier to than getting rid of weapons; and arms races never did anyone any good.

The other contextual point we generally fail to get is that in the USA it's absolutely fine to carry a fucking bazooka down the street as long as it's not concealed

Well, I don't consider being armed to be the -reason- that people should have to be civil. To be honest, I just think it's a fairly clever aphorism that happens to be true. If that's the only reason people are being nice to each other, I agree, it's pretty fucked up.

But while I agree with you that being involved in violent crime is rather unlikely in comparison to the perception that -some- folks have, I know that I have been involved in at least a few situations where I really wish that I could have just gotten control of things with a gun and kept everyone from doing things that were spectacularly stupid. Those situations have mostly turned out for the best anyway, but I don't want to keep relying on luck when I could be prepared. As I said earlier, I don't find it any more paranoid than carrying a spare tire in my car. I don't want to have to use it, but it's nice to know it's there.

And while arms races haven't done much good, there's a rather specific limit on this arms race. It's not like we're allowed to have bazookas or rocket launchers or anything else, despite your somewhat comic ending. It's not a race, it's just a binary arms decision, really. Do I carry or no? I don't think that everyone should carry, precisely, but I do think that a lot of people probably ought to who don't. Not because it's necessary, but because there is a small chance that it will be.

But yeah, the bazooka point. First off, we're not allowed to pack anything that big. I presume you know that, but I'm just throwing it out there just in case. But most important, it's a city decision to decide if brandishing alone is enough to be a crime, and most cities fall on the side of "Yes, yes it is a crime." Which is well as it should be, really. No need to walk around advertising, that's just silly.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Hey everyone...EfOOL is getting a gun.

Yes yes I am. I was looking at the S&W 686 too but its a bit more pricey. All depends on availability here, as the shops rape you on transfer fees for web purchases plus the shipping costs. Adds 100 bucks or so to the price.

One time I asked a box of hammers what its opinion was regarding gun ownership, and it came out less stupid than you, EtUL.

EtUL wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Whatever. Go arm yourselves.

Glad I have your approval I've been looking at this ruger

shiny

Turing wrote:One time I asked a box of hammers what its opinion was regarding gun ownership, and it came out less stupid than you, EtUL.

What? What I said about making everyone carry. You people need to open your fucking eyes and learn to read, maybe they should add that to the registration.

I don't believe any of that shit I said. It was just the farthest right thing I could come up with. Opposite end of prohibition.

You people are the retarded ones. None of you seem to realize that you aren't arguing with each other, you're all talking to fucking walls together.

vileliquid1026 wrote:Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

I don't see this happening ever. It would be bad for people like me who would get pissed off and pull out said weapon[s] when frustrated.

If it does go through ever... I want it to be allowed in the workplace as well.

Mr. Obvious states:

"Umm... It's not like there are any groups of people (read frat guys) on college campuses who would have tendencies toward irresponsible behavior (read rampant drunkeness, etc.) that would make it not a good idea to have a few guns handy."

Being found in possession of a handgun while having more than a .04 BAC is enough to get your license yanked in most states that have approved CCW permits.

Is anyone going to actually read a CCW law before they come up with "Obvious" criticisms? Or at least do some minimal research?

Jackal wrote: You're comparing apples and oranges. The only reason to carry a weapon is because you think you may have to use it. Otherwise you'd be content walking around like a normal person. Having health insurance is just plain smart because, without fail, people get sick and need medical attention at some point in their lives. Having health insurance is also a measure of financial security as well.

Comparing apples and oranges, yes. But the ideals for both are very similar. I'm content with walking around with or without my gun. Though I seriously feel better about knowing that I have health insurance. So to say that I'm worried about being attacked and that's why I carry a handgun is wrong.

Not everyone gets sick. Not everyone has auto accidents. Not everyone is going to die tomorrow. But most people still carry the insurance just in case. As "financial security" may be the major motivating factor, carring a firearm insures that your personal security is less at risk. Personally, I'd rather be alive than broke. I don't know about you.

vileliquid1026 wrote:
Don't most if not all Q3W threads end up like this anyway? This forum is actually full of intelligent people who state their case, back it up with fact, insert their opinion... and then just call each other douchefaggots.

That's the M.O. of most discussions here. Besides...name calling is fun.

If you don't like it go watch a 12 and under Disney movie, ya bad-webcam owning, purple-haired ditch whore.

I didn't say I didn't like it douche nozzle, I was just stating a fact

YourGrandpa wrote:

Jackal wrote: You're comparing apples and oranges. The only reason to carry a weapon is because you think you may have to use it. Otherwise you'd be content walking around like a normal person. Having health insurance is just plain smart because, without fail, people get sick and need medical attention at some point in their lives. Having health insurance is also a measure of financial security as well.

Comparing apples and oranges, yes. But the ideals for both are very similar. I'm content with walking around with or without my gun. Though I seriously feel better about knowing that I have health insurance. So to say that I'm worried about being attacked and that's why I carry a handgun is wrong.

Not everyone gets sick. Not everyone has auto accidents. Not everyone is going to die tomorrow. But most people still carry the insurance just in case. As "financial security" may be the major motivating factor, carring a firearm insures that your personal security is less at risk. Personally, I'd rather be alive than broke. I don't know about you.

actually, you weren't comparing apples with orange. professor jackal merely used the example of health insurance since most people are virtually certain to need it eventually, whereas a more intellectually honest comparison would have been with, say, home and contents insurance, since it's by no means certain your house will ever burn down, but you have it anyway, since it's better to have and not need, than need and not have

that last part should sound familiar btw

A gun is not insurance against violence though. In fact it's the exact opposite.

Jackal wrote:A gun is not insurance against violence though. In fact it's the exact opposite.

No. It is not. Idiocy+gun is a gaurentee for violence. Take away the idiocy and it becomes insurance against violence. If it was the tools that were the causes, fat people could sue spoon manufacturers.

seremtan wrote:actually, you weren't comparing apples with orange. professor jackal merely used the example of health insurance since most people are virtually certain to need it eventually, whereas a more intellectually honest comparison would have been with, say, home and contents insurance, since it's by no means certain your house will ever burn down, but you have it anyway, since it's better to have and not need, than need and not have

that last part should sound familiar btw

Apple: Getting sick and needing insurance.
Orange: Getting assaulted and needing a gun.

Both: Never a guarantee to happen at any given time. Though a gun, like insurance is nice to have when you need it.

Hope that helped.

Jackal wrote:A gun is not insurance against violence though. In fact it's the exact opposite.

I must disagree. I see your point, but I disagree. The person in possession of the weapon determines the likelihood of a violent altercation. I see a lot of absolutes being thrown around in this thread, most of them by GFY. I think the crux of the problem lies in who is allowed to own a gun and what criteria must be met to do so. I'm willing to bet that crimes committed by those with CC permits are quite low, especially in comparison to those that obtain guns illegally. Most likely because, IMO, CC holders are better trained in the use of firearms or because they really don't need to carry in the first place (more the latter) AND because criminals that steal guns are already criminals and more prone to improper, unprovoked use of a firearm.
I think at this point that if you're arguing for gun control in the US, you're a.) Not paying attention or b.) Not living here and not paying attention. Newsflash kids: GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK. There are something like 20,000 county, state, and federal gun laws in existence in the US and they've done...SHIT. They mostly just irritate legal gun owners.
There are times when I think it should be more difficult to buy a handgun. There should be some sort of situational testing you have to undergo, and if you fail, you can't own a gun until you can prove you know how to use it responsibly. I know it starts down the slippery slope of infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, but if you have to be trained and tested to drive a car... (a weapon that kills FAR more people than guns every year) Stupid people just shouldn't be able to own guns of any kind.

Nightshade wrote: I must disagree. I see your point, but I disagree. The person in possession of the weapon determines the likelihood of a violent altercation. I see a lot of absolutes being thrown around in this thread, most of them by GFY. I think the crux of the problem lies in who is allowed to own a gun and what criteria must be met to do so. I'm willing to bet that crimes committed by those with CC permits are quite low, especially in comparison to those that obtain guns illegally. Most likely because, IMO, CC holders are better trained in the use of firearms or because they really don't need to carry in the first place (more the latter) AND because criminals that steal guns are already criminals and more prone to improper, unprovoked use of a firearm.
I think at this point that if you're arguing for gun control in the US, you're a.) Not paying attention or b.) Not living here and not paying attention. Newsflash kids: GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK. There are something like 20,000 county, state, and federal gun laws in existence in the US and they've done...SHIT. They mostly just irritate legal gun owners.
There are times when I think it should be more difficult to buy a handgun. There should be some sort of situational testing you have to undergo, and if you fail, you can't own a gun until you can prove you know how to use it responsibly. I know it starts down the slippery slope of infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, but if you have to be trained and tested to drive a car... (a weapon that kills FAR more people than guns every year) Stupid people just shouldn't be able to own guns of any kind.

That was quite lucid...and quite right.

honestely wild turkey gets me drunk. i want to say: the idea that you need a concealed gun IS FUCKED UP. FUCK THAT. i just dont want my government controlling every aspect of my life. healthcare and all that should be HELPED by the goverment but telling me i cant own a piece of metal is bullshit. whether or not i want to buy one.

but dont own a gun or have health insurance. pwnt......

next....

also kids at MIT are faggots.....

Sigh.

Once again...I'm not talking about more gun control. I'm talking about not enticing more gun ownership. If you guys think that this concealed weapon idea could work countrywide where it's possible that more people than usual are carrying guns within the next 5-10 years...go ahead and try it. But like Iraq, just don't say we didn't warn you that you were doing it for the wrong reasons.

And quit bitching about my absolutes. I've been correct on many occasions that people pretended not to hear. Let's just leave it at that.

i actually agree with GKY.

do i shower in bleach now?

Big Kahuna Burger wrote:honestely wild turkey gets me drunk. i want to say: the idea that you need a concealed gun IS FUCKED UP. FUCK THAT. i just dont want my government controlling every aspect of my life. healthcare and all that should be HELPED by the goverment but telling me i cant own a piece of metal is bullshit. whether or not i want to buy one.

Did you know there's fluoride in your drinking water that is put there by the government?

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I've been correct on many occasions that people pretended not to hear.

Oh, absolutely.

as long as it keeps my pussy magnet of a smile gleaming, it's all good

Big Kahuna Burger wrote:i actually agree with GKY.

do i shower in bleach now?

I never gave you permission to agree with me.

Don't shower with it, drink it. It tastes like blueberry.

YourGrandpa wrote:

seremtan wrote:actually, you weren't comparing apples with orange. professor jackal merely used the example of health insurance since most people are virtually certain to need it eventually, whereas a more intellectually honest comparison would have been with, say, home and contents insurance, since it's by no means certain your house will ever burn down, but you have it anyway, since it's better to have and not need, than need and not have

that last part should sound familiar btw

Apple: Getting sick and needing insurance.
Orange: Getting assaulted and needing a gun.

Both: Never a guarantee to happen at any given time. Though a gun, like insurance is nice to have when you need it.

Hope that helped.

you probably heard a whooshing sound as you typed this ^

apple: having your house destroyed in a fire/flood/tornado
apple: being threatened by someone who intends you serious harm

neither is inevitable, and you may if you're lucky go your whole life without either happening to you, but if spending money on insuring against the first event is a good idea, why not the second one?