Quake3World

Eraser wrote:You can't mow down 17 people and injure dozens other with a knife. Also, no one needs a fully automatic assault rifle for 'personal protection'.
For that matter, no one really needs any sort of firearm for personal protection. I wonder how many of the gun crazy folk ever had real need of a firearm.

Hmm, where have I heard these tired-ass "arguments" before? Oh, that's right, from every single statist, ultra-lefty, "someone else will always be there to protect me" fool I've ever met.

1. A person can kill a SHITLOAD of people by driving their car into a crowd. So we need to ban cars.

2. No one said a thing about fully automatic weapons. Unless you have a specific federal license, you cannot purchase fully automatic weapons. Ergo, the average American can't get full-auto hardware. But even with semi-auto weapons, you don't have the right to tell me what I do or do not need to protect myself and my family.

3. No one needs any sort of firearm? Well, perhaps in a perfect world, but the last time I checked, that's not where we live. I'll guarantee that if someone broke into your house with a machete or something equally deadly, you'd most certainly want a gun. But, according to you, you don't need one. Better hope the cops get there fast.

Nightshade wrote:I notice that, as usual, you don't address anything I actually said about root causes or indeed anything regarding the substance of my arguments.

I addressed part of it in the other thread...specifically the mental health issue.

From what I can tell gun law in the US is just as strict, or possibly even more so than Britain ?, hasn't Canada similar laws also ?, doesn't that say gun ownership isn't the problem but something else ?

The US seem to be a bit mental with their guns, coppers draw them for no reason and have accidents quite frequently then there's the person they're pulling over for a traffic violation popping off shots like hes in counterstrike. Other countries like us probably have the same issues with violence, we have our fair share of murder without guns and seeing as our coppers can only carry pepper spray the worst accident they can have is a bout of tears, but we don't feel the need to carry a gun like I suppose someone would in the US so when they go on their rampage they're left with tools they have in their shed. Why do yanks feel the need to pack some heat ?, if its all down to defending ones home then that's like advertising paranoia and nonsense ?, that's the coppers job and the only real reason for anyone owning a gun is hunting ?, I cant see everyone in the US that owns a gun being a hunter so maybe access to guns should be restricted ?

If Britain didn't have a drinking problem I'm pretty sure we'd end up like you mind, I think ill forward that too Camemoron next time he decides to raise beer tax

losCHUNK wrote:From what I can tell gun law in the US is just as strict, or possibly even more so than Britain ?, hasn't Canada similar laws also ?, doesn't that say gun ownership isn't the problem but something else ?

Answers to this question here...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunsinamerica

http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/185/

What does it say?

States with higher gun ownership and weaker gun laws have more gun deaths while states with a lower percentage of households with guns and strong gun laws have lower numbers of gun deaths.

The rest of my post goes on to say that gun ownership isn't the problem but access to firearms is , might sound retarded but im treating it like 2 sides of the same coin

xer0s wrote:If y'all hate America so much, then stop supporting us. Stop watching our movies, playing our games, and fucking our men...

Bastard child, respect your daddy

Nightshade, the car argument is moronic and you know it.
Also, you didn't specify how often a gun was absolutely needed or has enforced a positive outcome in a situation where no gun would have worse consequences. I mean, what are the chances of you coming eye-to-eye with an armed burglar, especially if you consider there is no legal means for the burglar to acquire a weapon, let alone a gun. Also, out of all of those situations, in how many cases is the use of a gun the only viable option, or even the safest?

I think the chance that I get harmed by a burglar in the Netherlands is much, much smaller than the chance that you get shot by a (legal) gun in the US.

lol, uhm anyone remember that american tourist in canada? remember when he was so filled with fear and insecurity that he INSTINCTIVELY reached for his gun when two strangers approached him, but his gun wasn't there (thank the fucking jesus). I mean seriously, you think this scenario is not indicative of the fact that gun owners are fucking ignorant and trigger happy? That was a rhetorical question don't bother to give me your opinion.... a bunch of socially introverted, arrogant cave duelers they are.

Carrying a gun around intoxicates you with power, and debilitates your ability for rational thought.
All other rational options go out of the window a magnitude faster. When your first instinct is to reach for your gun under any scenario other than you feeling 100% safe and in control, it's time to realize you have a problem.

I said it before and I'll say it again. If you're gonna live under a rock all your life, atleast keep your guns in your own home for protecting your family from intruders. If you're too fearful and suspicious of everything around you, maybe you should just stay home, and don't interact with the rest of society. Problem solved.

Can you carry a gun round in the street ?, I thought it was restricted to properties ?

Its quite a sweeping assumption though that people are intoxicated by the power of a gun, but i'm sure it happens, a person escalating the situation because he feels in control but that's why access should be restricted from these people innit , owning a firearm for defence is fucking retarded imo, if you're put in a situation where you need a gun ill say you're pretty much fucked already or looking for trouble.

yes you can carry a gun around these here parts.../spits
granted you have the proper paperwork... which is really not hard to get.

ps
If you choose to carry a gun in public , then yes you have an issue with power intoxication.

pps
Also I just noticed on that other thread that GKY too suggested Nightshade should just stay home, which is funny cause I came to the same conclusion.

Tsakali wrote:yes you can carry a gun around these here parts.../spits
granted you have the proper paperwork... which is really not hard to get.

ps
If you choose to carry a gun in public , then yes you have an issue with power intoxication.

pps
Also I just noticed on that other thread that GKY too suggested Nightshade should just stay home, which is funny cause I came to the same conclusion.

Just state specific ?, I thought the majority of you lot had firearms restricted to your household, that's idiotic yo

and hmmph, maybe, or just completely paranoid, or cos its your right to carry a firearm (like we should vote, and not waste it cos its our right to), just assumptions ?

Not sure about all the states but yeah, an american has the right to own a registered gun and have it on his person at all times pretty much. Didn't you read about that situation where people where starting to bring their own guns in the movie theater for protection?
Yeah that's happening as we speak.

lofl, id be too scared to go out, wheres my rights to go out without fear of being shot ?

I thought the above, hence why I figured our laws were pretty similar but obv not :/

pretty soon americans will start wearing kevlar and plate body armour as well as packing, so the whole country will look like it's inhabited by hockey goalies or UT3 characters

losCHUNK wrote:lofl, id be too scared to go out, wheres my rights to go out without fear of being shot ?

I think this is a very valid point. In a civilized country, people should be able to go to the damn grocery store without being surrounded by armed people. If someone decides to use a gun, and fire is returned by people "protecting themselves," what do you think the chances are of innocent bystanders being caught in the crossfire? The mindset of the wild west is alive and well.

That said, too bad. The U.S. will never be safe. This Routers article claims that there are 90 guns for every 100 people in the U.S. Enough guns to arm ninety percent of the country.

I think it would be fantastic if we could eliminate firearms from our country. It's just not possible. The saying "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is certainly true. When there's 9 guns per 10 people in the country, there is no hope for ever eliminating that threat. Sure, you can ban semi-automatic rifles that have been used, but a couple pistols can still do almost as much damage.

There will still be illegal rifles out there for people to use for illegal activities. What's worse, is as far as I know it's totally legal to resell these weapons. For an individual to sell one to another individual, there is no background check required. So it's not like you can just look up all the people who have registered them, go around and collect them all.

I think Nightshade is totally right with this post:

Nightshade wrote:I have no new arguments here, nothing has changed. The explanation I have for the rate of gun violence in the US is that people want to kill each other. They use guns to do it. If we could suddenly remove all guns from the planet, guess what would happen? People would still be killing each other, they would just find other ways to do it. Why is that so hard for people to get? Gun crime is the SYMPTOM, not the PROBLEM. America doesn't have a "gun problem", America has socio-economic, educational, and parenting problems. America has shitty mental healthcare system problems. This leads a small number of individuals to kill people with firearms. Fix the aforementioned problems and we'll just be a fatter, slightly dumber version of Switzerland.

These attacks are rooted elsewhere. It wouldn't surprise me if the people doing these things would turn to home made bombs, or something else if they didn't have access to guns. Hell, even the Aurora (Batman) shooter had rigged his apartment to blow.

These people need accessible help before they get to this point. Depressingly, one of our current presidential candidates main talking points is reverting "Obamacare," something that opens up mental health care to people who in the past haven't had access. Half our country would rather kill "brown people in the desert" than help their own countrymen. How fucked up is this place?

If it weren't such a geographical clusterfuck, I'd say we should just split the country in two and let the "other half" kill each other off.

For the record, I've never even fired a gun and certainly don't own one. I just think it's purely an idealistic thing to say that this is a gun control problem.

Eraser wrote:Nightshade, the car argument is moronic and you know it.

It's only moronic if you're too dumb to understand it. I am not going to break it down for you, so if you don't get it, we'll just move on.

Eraser wrote: Also, you didn't specify how often a gun was absolutely needed or has enforced a positive outcome in a situation where no gun would have worse consequences. I mean, what are the chances of you coming eye-to-eye with an armed burglar, especially if you consider there is no legal means for the burglar to acquire a weapon, let alone a gun. Also, out of all of those situations, in how many cases is the use of a gun the only viable option, or even the safest?

Um, what in blue fuck are you talking about? You said you don't need a gun for protection. Firstly, you don't have the right to tell me that. Secondly, I don't need to specify numbers if we're talking about a hypothetical situation, specifically one wherein I'm defending my home. At least, not in the context of this argument. You're telling me what I need or don't need, which is presumptuous at best, fascist at worst. We've gone over this burglar argument before, but I'll repeat: If someone breaks into my home, why should I go the extra mile to ensure the burglar comes to the least harm, especially when he's breaking the law and likely is more than willing to shoot me? Why should I wait to make sure he has a gun? Would I likely do that? Yes, I'm not the type to just blast away at the first bump I hear in the night, but then again I'm not a fucking retard. But, should I have to? Hell no. I'm not the one committing the crime!

And by the way, why do you think that there's no legal means for a burglar to obtain a gun? Are you talking about in the Nether Regions of in the US?

If you want to talk about specific numbers, I'm sure there are sources out there that we could examine. Have there been cases where someone tried to use a gun and shouldn't have? Sure, but there are some people that just shouldn't have guns, and I won't argue otherwise.

Eraser wrote: I think the chance that I get harmed by a burglar in the Netherlands is much, much smaller than the chance that you get shot by a (legal) gun in the US.

1. You better hope so.

2. I doubt very highly that the odds of me getting shot by a legal gun owner are higher. If you have something on which to base that, post it. If not, you're just speculating, probably because you watch too many movies.

The main point I have to make about your last statement is this: The odds of you (or me, for that matter) getting confronted by an armed burglar are not in question. It's what choices you (or I) will have if it does happen. Note here that I don't expect to be the subject of a home invasion any time soon. I don't live in a state of fear and paranoia, I live in the real world. But, if this unthinkable event were to occur, and you don't have a firearm. Guess what, Skippy? You may end up watching your wife get raped and shot before you get killed. If you DO have a gun, that's not going to happen.

Tsakali wrote: pps
Also I just noticed on that other thread that GKY too suggested Nightshade should just stay home, which is funny cause I came to the same conclusion.

Well, that's because you're both cut from the same bolt of incredibly stupid cloth. If you two assclowns feel the need to lump me in with the right-wing gun nut retards, go ahead. If it's easier for you to dismiss my arguments by assuming that I ride around on my chrome-plated, cross-eyed retard horse wearing a ten-gallon hat, blasting anything that moves with my Chuck Norris Limited Edition .88 magnum while I fuck my sister and watch Sarah Palin/Charelton Heston erotic fanfic movies, be my guest. It doesn't mean it's true, but it does mean you're incapable of addressing a rational argument or admitting that you might not be entirely correct.

i'm willing to allow you to protect your family in your own home. But if it was up to me I wouldn't want you walking around with a gun and taking justice into your own hands. You either accept some societal norms or just go live in the fucking woods and make up whatever justifiable morals you want...it won't affect me.

Nightshade wrote:

Eraser wrote:Nightshade, the car argument is moronic and you know it.

It's only moronic if you're too dumb to understand it. I am not going to break it down for you, so if you don't get it, we'll just move on.

You know what he meant was that cars, like knives have a functional role in society, where as guns do not , and people do have a fit of rage and drive into things, dread to think what they'd do with a gun

Nightshade wrote:

Eraser wrote: Also, you didn't specify how often a gun was absolutely needed or has enforced a positive outcome in a situation where no gun would have worse consequences. I mean, what are the chances of you coming eye-to-eye with an armed burglar, especially if you consider there is no legal means for the burglar to acquire a weapon, let alone a gun. Also, out of all of those situations, in how many cases is the use of a gun the only viable option, or even the safest?

Um, what in blue fuck are you talking about? You said you don't need a gun for protection. Firstly, you don't have the right to tell me that. Secondly, I don't need to specify numbers if we're talking about a hypothetical situation, specifically one wherein I'm defending my home. At least, not in the context of this argument. You're telling me what I need or don't need, which is presumptuous at best, fascist at worst. We've gone over this burglar argument before, but I'll repeat: If someone breaks into my home, why should I go the extra mile to ensure the burglar comes to the least harm, especially when he's breaking the law and likely is more than willing to shoot me? Why should I wait to make sure he has a gun? Would I likely do that? Yes, I'm not the type to just blast away at the first bump I hear in the night, but then again I'm not a fucking retard. But, should I have to? Hell no. I'm not the one committing the crime!

And by the way, why do you think that there's no legal means for a burglar to obtain a gun? Are you talking about in the Nether Regions of in the US?

Us non gun owners are probably in the perfect position to tell you that you don't need a gun, saying we don't have the right just stinks of ignorance, I've got this far without being mugged, raped or murdered *touches wood*, how many times have you needed your gun ?. I said on the last page that if you're in a position where you need a gun you're either fucked or looking for trouble, if someone breaks into your house it'll take some serious paranoia to think that they're there to kill/harm you, believe it or not most robbers don't like getting caught and expect you to be out or asleep when they're at work, if you got a gun and decide to hunt down a burglar that you think may or may not be armed then that's you looking for trouble and if anything can escalate a situation imo

Could just as easily say what gives you the right to defend yourself in the street and put many others peoples lives at stake like

Nightshade wrote:
If you want to talk about specific numbers, I'm sure there are sources out there that we could examine. Have there been cases where someone tried to use a gun and shouldn't have? Sure, but there are some people that just shouldn't have guns, and I won't argue otherwise.

Eraser wrote: I think the chance that I get harmed by a burglar in the Netherlands is much, much smaller than the chance that you get shot by a (legal) gun in the US.

1. You better hope so.

2. I doubt very highly that the odds of me getting shot by a legal gun owner are higher. If you have something on which to base that, post it. If not, you're just speculating, probably because you watch too many movies.

Probably right but my argument is the access and availability of firearms , gun ownership is fine provided you have a good enough reason (self defence not being one of them imo)

Nightshade wrote:
The main point I have to make about your last statement is this: The odds of you (or me, for that matter) getting confronted by an armed burglar are not in question. It's what choices you (or I) will have if it does happen. Note here that I don't expect to be the subject of a home invasion any time soon. I don't live in a state of fear and paranoia, I live in the real world. But, if this unthinkable event were to occur, and you don't have a firearm. Guess what, Skippy? You may end up watching your wife get raped and shot before you get killed. If you DO have a gun, that's not going to happen.

If you think that-ll happen to you then that's paranoia, having your wife raped in front of you, do you make countermeasures for asteroid impacts also ? (seeing as were leaving odds to one side), you dont know what your gun would do, could be used against you like

Gun nuts already shoot at things in the sky, why not an asteriod?

that's just silly.
gun nuts don't believe in asteroids.

any day now...

[lvlshot]http://i.imgur.com/YcKff.jpg[/lvlshot]

If I could I would pack an Uzi SMG * for personal & family protection #



Only problem is, if you open fire prepare to die of go to jail for life, so there is not much of a choice as you see.
Nice weapon though

# Sometimes I am happy they banned private (unregistered) fire arm ownership here in Oz. Only sometimes tough.



----------------------- Personal reference here if I may - R.I.P. David Tuck I do think of you occasionally

* Don't take a knife to a gunfight

Nightshade wrote:Um, what in blue fuck are you talking about? You said you don't need a gun for protection. Firstly, you don't have the right to tell me that. [...] You're telling me what I need or don't need, which is presumptuous at best, fascist at worst.

Dude, chill. It's not about having the "right" or not, it's just about a personal opinion. I just don't believe a gun is an asset that anyone in the western world needs. If I look at my own life and area I live in (so there might be a discrepancy with the US there), then I have never ever felt the need to own a gun. The thought that you need a gun to protect yourself is brought forth by fear, nothing else. And a man grasping for a gun out of fear is very dangerous indeed, and not just to the person he's pointing it at. A gun, at best, gives a false sense of security.

Whiskey 7 wrote:If I could I would pack an Uzi SMG * for personal & family protection #

Outside of your prison rape stories, have you ever been in a situation where a military SMG weapon could've saved your life or a loved one?