This had a lot to do with the fact that a majority of the population in Iraq wanted Sadam gone... there's also the fact that the Iraqi's don't aim when they shoot. I'm not joking about that, I know a couple of vet's from Iraq and they've all told me the Iraqi's don't know how to shoot, they usually shoot from the hip and rarely hit there target.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
And what exactly did gun ownership (about 1 AK per household if the stories are true) allow Saddam's supporters to do when all of a sudden someone overthrew their government? Die faster in pointless gun battles they didn't have a hope in hell of winning? Become valid armed military targets for aerial bombardment? And is walking the streets in post-regime change Iraq with an AK more likely to protect you and your family, or get you shot by a US sniper/tank?AllmightyOz wrote:
What would happen if one did not have the means to defend one's self against the government? What if all of the sudden, someone overthrew your government and you were left, powerless to do anything considering your lack of firearms? You would be effed.
And the biggest question of all, did it help them bring back their old government or allow them to make any contribution to the new government that they couldn't have otherwise?
Neither one, if they aren't willing to trust me, a law abiding citizen, then what makes you think they would trust us with things like free speach? The 2nd Ammendment is the tooth and claw of the constitution.GotMex? wrote:
Question for all you "Constitutional Rights" arguers:
If your right to bear arms was taken away, I know most of you say that you would feel vulnerable and unable to defend yourself. Is this because you know that criminals carry guns on them, or because you feel that a gun is the only way for protection?
The government should fear it's people, not the other way around.
the second ammedment is a aincent piece of paper in severe need of revision.ts-pulsar wrote:
Neither one, if they aren't willing to trust me, a law abiding citizen, then what makes you think they would trust us with things like free speach? The 2nd Ammendment is the tooth and claw of the constitution.GotMex? wrote:
Question for all you "Constitutional Rights" arguers:
If your right to bear arms was taken away, I know most of you say that you would feel vulnerable and unable to defend yourself. Is this because you know that criminals carry guns on them, or because you feel that a gun is the only way for protection?
The government should fear it's people, not the other way around.
You know what I find funny about the second amendment argument? It states that the people should have weapons so that they can form a militia and defend their country. Now, if a foreign power can defeat the US army, the most powerful military force on the planet, how the hell are a few office workers with assault rifles gonna stop them?
Then having a gun means they shoot you first .ts-pulsar wrote:
To those who have said they trust the police, that's just fine and dandy, but what happens when the police become untrustworthy, or worse, become the criminals?
You know what the fatality rate for people who shoot it out with cops is?
I'll give you a hint. It's in the vicinity of 99%.
Haven't you ever seen the documentary Red Dawn? *nod to Grand Theft Auto-Vice City*Bubbalo wrote:
You know what I find funny about the second amendment argument? It states that the people should have weapons so that they can form a militia and defend their country. Now, if a foreign power can defeat the US army, the most powerful military force on the planet, how the hell are a few office workers with assault rifles gonna stop them?
Nope. Feel free to enlighten me.
1. A firearm is both a sporting device and a tool for defense.
a. I go to an outdoor gun range now and then to fire at paper targets. This harms nobody. Target shooting is a great way for children to learn that firearms are a normal device, like a hammer or a power drill.
b. I keep small-caliber weapons on hand to defend myself in case of a housebreaker's appearance. These people have unknown capacity for violence, and it is better to neutralize them on the spot rather than risk yourself and your family. The weapons are loaded with fragmenting rounds, and will not go through three walls to kill a neighbor's baby in their crib.
2. Just because I face a statistical improbability of experiencing a housebreaking while I'm present doesn't mean that I'll sit back and discount the possibility entirely. I live in an area where they are not unheard of; in my own city, and not just a neighboring one. And no, I don't sit on the porch with a shotgun in my hands just waiting for somebody to cross my property line.
3. Media is at great fault for glamourizing firearms, and anti-gun activists share responsibility for making of them an attractive taboo.
4. Disarmament does not mean that a government will take complete control from its people. But it does mean that it will be easier for a government to do so if it is so inclined. Private firearms ownership marks a sort of low-level insurance against that sort of scenario.
5. Two different cultures cannot be statistically compared with one another as far as "firearms ownership to murder" ratio is concerned. Again, projectile weapons are not a prerequisite for killing people.
But again with the assault rifle thing. I own three rifles, but none of them are automatic. I think the term has found itself confused with semi-auto rifles due to the fact that some models are produced with both variations.
a. I go to an outdoor gun range now and then to fire at paper targets. This harms nobody. Target shooting is a great way for children to learn that firearms are a normal device, like a hammer or a power drill.
b. I keep small-caliber weapons on hand to defend myself in case of a housebreaker's appearance. These people have unknown capacity for violence, and it is better to neutralize them on the spot rather than risk yourself and your family. The weapons are loaded with fragmenting rounds, and will not go through three walls to kill a neighbor's baby in their crib.
2. Just because I face a statistical improbability of experiencing a housebreaking while I'm present doesn't mean that I'll sit back and discount the possibility entirely. I live in an area where they are not unheard of; in my own city, and not just a neighboring one. And no, I don't sit on the porch with a shotgun in my hands just waiting for somebody to cross my property line.
3. Media is at great fault for glamourizing firearms, and anti-gun activists share responsibility for making of them an attractive taboo.
4. Disarmament does not mean that a government will take complete control from its people. But it does mean that it will be easier for a government to do so if it is so inclined. Private firearms ownership marks a sort of low-level insurance against that sort of scenario.
5. Two different cultures cannot be statistically compared with one another as far as "firearms ownership to murder" ratio is concerned. Again, projectile weapons are not a prerequisite for killing people.
See 4. A dystopian scenario like Nazi Germany allows for the eventual (and usually miserable) prolonged death of even unarmed civilians.Noobzorz wrote:
Then having a gun means they shoot you first .ts-pulsar wrote:
To those who have said they trust the police, that's just fine and dandy, but what happens when the police become untrustworthy, or worse, become the criminals?
You know what the fatality rate for people who shoot it out with cops is?
I'll give you a hint. It's in the vicinity of 99%.
The amendment itself actually reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," which does not necessarily refer only to an invasion by powers foreign. And as for the unlikely civil war scenario brought on by 4. (mark you, I am no savage sitting around in a basement praying for such bloodshed), the military would probably be divided against itself at some level. The logistics of keeping track of personnel origins to prevent people from being ordered to bomb their own home towns would be overwhelming.Bubbalo wrote:
You know what I find funny about the second amendment argument? It states that the people should have weapons so that they can form a militia and defend their country. Now, if a foreign power can defeat the US army, the most powerful military force on the planet, how the hell are a few office workers with assault rifles gonna stop them?
But again with the assault rifle thing. I own three rifles, but none of them are automatic. I think the term has found itself confused with semi-auto rifles due to the fact that some models are produced with both variations.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-01 21:00:30)
For the love of God...this is the most rediculous post E-V-E-R...who the fuck is going to read all of that?
So, we need to keep firearms normal so that kids can learn that firearms are normal? Circular logic.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Target shooting is a great way for children to learn that firearms are a normal device, like a hammer or a power drill.
Now for the real problem, Russian, chineese, and Ugoslovian AK-47's being dumped by the thousands in third world countries to Kill and cause destruction. Whats the plan for that?jonsimon wrote:
Yeah, so I couldn't bare to read past the first paragraph. The author displays his stupidity when he first states that anyone who is not an advocate of gun ownership is "out of touch with reality and rational thought."
This author is a pisspoor addition to any debate, and is dreadfully prejudiced against reality.
As for gun ownership, I don't know if I would want to ban guns or not, but I do know for a fact that the less avaliable guns are the fewer homicides and suicides committed. This is a statistical and logical fact.
First, I take MY son with me to the range since he was 8. He Know RESPECT for His firearms. He wont be the kid out shooting people, ill gaurentee that.Nehil wrote:
You can argue all day about if your more likely to shoot you buddy then a criminal all day cuse I don't think there is any actual data on that (if you do have any, please do post it), also, I don't have any idea even where to buy a gun legally, no fricking clue. I haven't seen any shop in my life that sells guns. Also about having more spreadout population, Stockholm is a city in the size of Dallas or Houston, I'm pretty sure we have less gun related crimes there then over in the states.NasmNLH wrote:
To ts-pulsar,
To Nehil,
"I'm pretty sure the chance that your buddy does it and you shoot him is bigger." Anyone who trains for self-defense using firearms would learn that target identification is extremely important and that you are responsible for where all of your bullets go. Given that one would be less than likely to kill a buddy (who shouldn't be sneaking up on you anyway).
Pertaining to "if you wanted to buy a illegal gun, do you know where to go and who to ask? In Sweden I don't have a fucking clue". you don't know where to buy an illegal gun because you're not a criminal. I don't know where to buy an illegal gun because I'm not a criminal. Legal gun owners wouldn't have any idea how to buy illegal guns either because they're not criminals.
To All,
I am an American and a soon-to-be legal firearms owner/carrier. I believe in self-defense and being as prepared as possible to defend my life if the need should arise. I understand that using/carrying firearms is a huge responsibility and am prepared to accept that. I am not looking for any fights, nor am I looking to kill anyone. I hope I will never be in such a life-threatening situation. I do not expect I will ever be in a such a situation. I do plan on being prepared to defend my life with lethal force (including the use of a firearm) if I have to.
Also, I heartily enjoy shooting sports. I have fun with casual target shooting. I like to do some friendly competitive shooting with friends. I enjoy shooting skeet. And I have had good times hunting. If the right to keep and bear arms was taken away from me I would not know what to do. I would feel ill-equipped to defend myself. I would lose a lot of opportunity to have fun. I would be worried about possible oppression by our government. I would very likely attempt to move to another, more enlightened place, if gun ownership was outlawed.
NasmNLH
Sure, you can enjoy going to a shooting range, no problem (but taking your 8-12 year old son with you is just completely fucked up, but I'm not saying you do that) aslong as nobody gets hurt. But carring a guy with you in the streets or something like that is just crazy, what if you get jumped and you shoot that person, he/she dies, would you feel good about that? Defending yourself at the cost of someones life? If I'd get robbed I'd just surrender my stuff, doing anything else is just plain crazy, so many others could get hurt. I already once stated that even if someone wanted to kill me I probably would not use lethal force, but I can't really say for sure since I've never been in a situation like that.
As for surrendering your stuff, Ummmmm In most cases it doesnt work that way. Here, You have gangs of teens running around And this is a quote from most,"looking for old people to beat up and rob" Problem is, these Old people are dying by the hands of these Idiots. Would i shoot one or two of them if they came up to me with w gun? HELL YES i would, and you know what, I wouldnt feel and ounce of guilt, because they sure as hell wont feel any for my bleeding ass left in a street to die. Ive already said many times Ive used my weapon And the other guy didnt win. Do i feel guilty? NOPE. why you ask? Because if i didnt My wife and Kid would have ended up dead either By the guys Gun, or in the Assured Car chase that would have taken place.
It is not circular logic. Circular logic would be:Bubbalo wrote:
So, we need to keep firearms normal so that kids can learn that firearms are normal? Circular logic.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Target shooting is a great way for children to learn that firearms are a normal device, like a hammer or a power drill.
"Bubbalo makes liberal statements.
Bubbalo made a statement.
Bubbalo's statement is liberal."
This would be somewhat logical by definition, but inapplicable to the real world.
A tool is an implement used to facilitate mechanical or manual operations. A firearm falls under this definition as a rather useful tool for self-defense. The world is not a utopian society, therefore a case for self defense can be considered normal (depriving yourself and others of immediate means of defense will not make the world a utopian place). If an individual knows how to properly use a tool, they will not be as likely to injure or kill themselves with it during its use. Knowing how to use a tool requires practice. Using firearms under controlled circumstances is a great way for a newbie to receive and absorb instruction. You should be twice as wary of an armed (but neutral or friendly) entity who does not know how to use a firearm as you are of one who does.
About half-way through my childhood, my parents acquired firearms, and made quite sure I knew what I was doing with them. I've never been tempted to remove them from the safe and take them to school in a backpack to show off to my friends...but they might have been a more tempting prize if access to them was unconditionally denied.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-01 21:19:00)
MAybe true facts, But lets see, The UK is the size of what state here? Hmmmmm Size DOES matter.Recoil555 wrote:
Ive been reading up on this so i feel that I'm not just giving unbacked opinion so I consulted the FBI database to what was what in gun crime in USA and then compared it our own murder rate in UK and what cross section or that is gun related and what is knife or other weapons related.
(USA)
Year Number of Murder offenses Rate per 100,000 inhabitants Deemed unjustifiable by law (including attempted murder)
2003 16,528
2004 16,137
Weapons
Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles. Approximately 12.4 of the murders were committed with other types or unspecified types of firearms. Knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.1 percent of the murders; personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet, were used in 7.0 percent of murders, and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, hammers, etc.) were used in 5.0 percent of the homicides. Other weapons, such as poison, explosives, narcotics, etc., were used in 3.6 percent of the murders. (Based on Table 2.9.)
Justifiable Homicide
Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable, or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:
The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter classification.
During 2004, law enforcement agencies provided supplemental data for 666 justifiable homicides. A breakdown of those figures revealed that law enforcement officers justifiably killed 437 felons and private citizens justifiably killed 229 felons. Tables 2.15 and 2.16 provide additional information about justifiable homicides.
So thats .... less than 1000 murders that were justifiable by people protecting themselves from a felon and thats 70 % of the 16000 odd murders that were deemed unjustifiable where using firearm of some sort and only 14% used knives and even less with blunt objects.
Those figures off your government at
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses … urder.html
Here are the figures for Murder in UK
http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/fac … factsheets
These figures are comparable because both are how much murder / attempted murder per 100.000 people so difference in population is not an issue here because we are looking at the ratio of murder per 100.000 people not the over all amount of murder is comparable.
How much gun crime is there ? (in the UK)
[The figures cited throughout this factsheet come from the Home Office and police organisations].
In less serious incidents of violence against the person, firearms were involved in 4,568 offences – a 31% increase from 2003/04.
Firearms were used in 73 homicides in 2004/05 (under one in ten of all homicides), five more than the previous year.
March 2003 - March 2004 Total murders per 100.000 inhabitant = 853 (including attempted murder)
One thing I have found out is the FBI is much better or at least give perception they can count crime better because to find the UK statistics was slightly harder because we have surveys of perception of crime and survey of reported crime i tried to stick to reported crime. Now as for what the figure say I'm not saying that guns simply being there is the reason why the rates are higher its America's attitude to them and they way the media portrays guns on top of the general perception that the right to have arms makes you safer. I'm not saying that you dont have the right to protect your families all I'm saying is that making it a balanced playing field doesn't mean your come out on top or even anyone will if you both have guns one person illegally and the other legally how does it make it safer you can both shoot each other ? people have argued about logical argument when you give both people guns i can tell you it hardly ever stops people getting shot.
The argument that people will kill each with or without guns is true yet for a few simple things guns are designed for range killing and you must be
A) A lot closer and determined to give someone with knife or blunt object therefore making people think harder about killing when you have to physically drive the knife through someones heart which i can probably guess is alot more personal and you can feel the the life drain away from them than simply picking up a gun and shooting someone from anything from 3 metre to 2 miles away with modern sniper rifle.
B) crazy if you think that training helps win you the firefight because what if the person shooting at you gets a lucky shot and it just happens to hit you in head no amount of training is going to save you it may help you be more skillful at shooting but as many police officers will testify that has been wounded in the line of duty that the fact they could shoot well didn't increase their chances of not getting shot maybe it increases your chances of shooting someone but there will always be a time where the odds are not in you favour.
On top of all that the criminals that rob houses don't usually intend to kill you so therefore threatening them with a gun if they have an illegally obtained gun will only further serve to make the situation worst. I know someones going to say but what if they re coming to kill you whole family ? well for a start they probably know you someone close to you and will have prior knowledge of what the best way to get into your house when and will do it when there is least resistance so night time for most people when they re asleep so when they shoot you where you lie what difference does it make if you have a gun ? surely a really good lock on you door if you that paranoid would be a better choice. That said that happens less than a drive by from a gang you more likely to get shot in the crossfire than in you house by a total stranger and having a gun then like someone has already said is pretty useless considering you would have to be quick draw McGraw to even get a shot off never mind an excellent shot to hit anyone in the fast moving car.
My point is more times having gun when your being attacked only serves to either make things worse or does nothing at all and when it does it only balances the playing field. So you see the problem cannot be thought of in such simple terms as if someone has a gun i better have gun to fight back because it just doesn't work like that. I do think that not have having guns decreases the amount of murder simply due how easy it is to kill someone with a gun but with USA now they have had the right to own guns for so long means that its a deeply seeded in their culture and banning gun in USA probably wouldn't work straight away because its not as simple as taking the guns away but once they get used to it then it they might realise that being able to defend yourself doesn't always mean you can, i don't think it will ever happen in my life time though.
These are my views only I'm not saying they are the truth wholeheartedly 10 times out 10 but the figures don't lie and FBI have no reason to lie about this and neither do BCS (British crime survey) because non of the figures help the UK and USA in anyway so their is no reason to make them up.
Nuke em.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
Now for the real problem, Russian, chineese, and Ugoslovian AK-47's being dumped by the thousands in third world countries to Kill and cause destruction. Whats the plan for that?jonsimon wrote:
Yeah, so I couldn't bare to read past the first paragraph. The author displays his stupidity when he first states that anyone who is not an advocate of gun ownership is "out of touch with reality and rational thought."
This author is a pisspoor addition to any debate, and is dreadfully prejudiced against reality.
As for gun ownership, I don't know if I would want to ban guns or not, but I do know for a fact that the less avaliable guns are the fewer homicides and suicides committed. This is a statistical and logical fact.
No really, just kidding.
Listen you ignorant FUCK! Im a Gulf war vet, Injured in the line of duty, Came back home to my FUCKING JOB and ended up BREAKING my back in 2 places. Mow Fuckstick, after 6 surgeries and more comeing, and probably a wheelchair at FUCKING 40, you go fuck yourself. You dont Know me at all and have no fucking right to Judge. I Trod my crippled ass out every fucking day I can get out of the Bed and stand and I Walk with my shotgun, if i see a deer I KILL it, as many as i have Tags for. As for my computer, Its a SHARED computer that My son NEEDS for Highschool work. Why would i buy Junk off a shelf when i can buy pieces At half price and Build it myself? DUH you Idiot.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
fuck read back to the original posts about this. maybe if you could do that, you could get a job that pays well enough to put food on the table. by the way how do you go about buying a computer that is good enough to play bf2 but not put food on the table for your family, you are one selfish person and should be left.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
My guns are tools for Putting food on the table. So you are wrong when referring to guns as Non tools. If you have money to put meat on the table every day congrats, Im not so fortunate.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
guns are weapons and knives are a tool. yes knives can be used as weapons, but a gun cannot be used as a tool.
well said...was going to say same thing but you did it better:DAlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
1) This doesn't work in America, its too broad. The ones that work areDiray wrote:
You keep your guns in america, and I'll be happy. No offence.
1) As Nehil said, ''Less guns <-> Less murders''.
I guess that applies to most of europe/scandinavia.
2) I admit that I didn't read it all, but so far, I haven't seen any ''For us citizens only''.
3) You can have all the restrictions and licenses you want, but there will always be that odd sheep, or three, who manage to bypass them and go out on a killing spree.
LESS criminals = Less Murder
LESS criminals with guns = Less Murder
BUT
LESS GUNS = less guns for LAWFULLY abiding citizens = MORE Murder, citizens can't defend themselves properly. While the first mantra you quoted works so well in Europe, there are MUCH more criminals here in the U.S. and a higher crime rate, which has absolutely nothing to do with firearms. I suggest you read More Guns, Less Crime by a very well known and respected author John Lott. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … 6?v=glance
2) No, its open to all, but you guys seem to assume a lot more about America and Americans, mostly for the bad, your fellow foreigners are not making good names for people like you who are much more level headed. (I.e. I've been called sick, crazy, and "readily prepared to take someone's life") Which are all not true.
3) You make a very good point, which illustrates WHY, at least in America, GOOD GUYS, us LAW abiding citizens need our firearms to protect ourselves from over zealous criminals. Why take away the guns from law abiding citizens when criminals will always find a way to get one. Doesn't make any sense.
As I posted before, a tool is a device used for manual or mechanical operations. Guns and blades fall into these categories, respectively. The fact that a tool can also be a weapon doesn't change the fact that it is a tool.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
guns are weapons and knives are a tool. yes knives can be used as weapons, but a gun cannot be used as a tool.
* People who obsess about the dangers of guns have no respect for what a knife can do in a skilled hand (and silently at that).
* A gun can be used for hunting. You can acquire food in this manner (no, I don't see any fundamental difference between manually killing game and buying slaughtered meat from a store).
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-01 21:35:56)
It is typical of gun nuts that they are uncultured and uneducated.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It is not circular logic. Circular logic would be:Bubbalo wrote:
So, we need to keep firearms normal so that kids can learn that firearms are normal? Circular logic.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Target shooting is a great way for children to learn that firearms are a normal device, like a hammer or a power drill.
"Bubbalo makes liberal statements.
Bubbalo made a statement.
Bubbalo's statement is liberal."
This would be somewhat logical by definition, but inapplicable to the real world.
A tool is an implement used to facilitate mechanical or manual operations. A firearm falls under this definition as a rather useful tool for self-defense. The world is not a utopian society, therefore a case for self defense can be considered normal (depriving yourself and others of immediate means of defense will not make the world a utopian place). If an individual knows how to properly use a tool, they will not be as likely to injure or kill themselves with it during its use. Knowing how to use a tool requires practice. Using firearms under controlled circumstances is a great way for a newbie to receive and absorb instruction. You should be twice as wary of an armed (but neutral or friendly) entity who does not know how to use a firearm as you are of one who does.
About half-way through my childhood, my parents acquired firearms, and made quite sure I knew what I was doing with them. I've never been tempted to remove them from the safe and take them to school in a backpack to show off to my friends...but they might have been a more tempting prize if access to them was unconditionally denied.
What you call circular logic is, in fact, a reverse syllogism.
Also, what HE called circular logic was, in fact, circular logic.
Man. It's like you want us not to take you seriously.
Further, this stupid argument (and statistical evidence has SHOWN it to be stupid, whereas all the gun lobby can come up with is a stupid rationale) that keeps popping up is absurd:
Uhuh. This argument is so totally indefensible I don't know what to say.* People who obsess about the dangers of guns have no respect for what a knife can do in a skilled hand (and silently at that).
* A gun can be used for hunting. You can acquire food in this manner (no, I don't see any fundamental difference between manually killing game and buying slaughtered meat from a store).
How many people are skilled in knife combat?
I'm not. I'll bet you're not. I'll bet around 100% of the population that wasn't in the military is not.
How many have the balls and ability to sneak around with a knife like it was splinter cell?
I'm not. I'll bet you're not. I'll bet around 100% of the population that wasn't in the military is not.
How many people can pick up a gun and pull a trigger?
Everyone over the age of four.
How many people have picked up a gun and pulled the trigger with the gun pointed at someone?
God knows how many people.
A gun lets you kill someone, dispassionately, instantly, without any time for thinking about what you're doing. People who knife people are generally (although this is not necessarily the case) not doing it because they walked into a room and saw their spouse sleeping around and freaked out.
Stabbings? They happen, no doubt. But you have to walk up to this person, and stab him a whole lot, or disfigure him in some totally objectionable way. You have to really want it.
Gun crime? See someone you don't like? Bang, dead.
Further, who hunts game with a semi-automatic?
Exactly.
So can that crap and use the actual, factual, logical stuff.
Last edited by Noobzorz (2006-09-01 21:54:34)
anyone can use a knife... just like how you cut meat... just a matter of how well you know how to use a knife. its easier to hunt w/ a semi-auto when you missed your target the first time. Even though in taiwan guns are illegal, we have gas powered bb's which fire aluminium balls faster then real guns (legal)... ffs our system is fucked up. Guns are safe with the right hands, and deadly in the wrong hands. same with a knife. If a robber came to your house and you pulled out a Deagle, do you think he wants to fuck with you? how many people who owns guns have ever shot someone?
Well, I'm opposede to guns, but for a slightly different reason than to the one that's been discussed again and again and again.
So you have a gun.
You're in bed. You're sound asleep, until you wake up suddenly.
You hear a door creak. Footsteps. Instinctively, you move to get your gun.
The mystery person continues to creep, it must be a burglar or something.
You shoot.
It turns out to be your wife, going to the bathroom.
How are you feeling about your gun now, eh? Use a cricket bat - still strong, still freakishly scary (what would you do if you had a 1m-long piece of fat wood hurled at you?), but at least you can see who it is.
So you have a gun.
You're in bed. You're sound asleep, until you wake up suddenly.
You hear a door creak. Footsteps. Instinctively, you move to get your gun.
The mystery person continues to creep, it must be a burglar or something.
You shoot.
It turns out to be your wife, going to the bathroom.
How are you feeling about your gun now, eh? Use a cricket bat - still strong, still freakishly scary (what would you do if you had a 1m-long piece of fat wood hurled at you?), but at least you can see who it is.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
No, that is affirming the consequent.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Bubbalo makes liberal statements.
Bubbalo made a statement.
Bubbalo's statement is liberal."
Circular logic would be:
"Bubbalo only makes liberal statements, therefore his statements are all liberal. We know that he only makes liberal statements because all his statements are liberal. We know that all his statements are liberal because he only makes liberal statements."
There isn't much practical difference, you're still just repeating your point over and over again.Bubbalo wrote:
No, that is affirming the consequent.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Bubbalo makes liberal statements.
Bubbalo made a statement.
Bubbalo's statement is liberal."
Circular logic would be:
"Bubbalo only makes liberal statements, therefore his statements are all liberal. We know that he only makes liberal statements because all his statements are liberal. We know that all his statements are liberal because he only makes liberal statements."
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Actually, there is. The first statement could easily be true, you're basically just making an absolute statement based on incomplete evidence. The second, however, uses itself as evidence of it's own existence.
Wow, prejudice much? Most of my customers are highly educated, I have a few who are doctors, several engineers with masters degrees, a lot of police and firemen. The truth is, gun's aren't cheap, your uneducated are not going to be able to afford to be a "gun nut". You'd be very surprised to find out what kind of people are "gun nuts". I'd say only one out of every 15 of my customers would fit your classification of a "gun nut".Noobzorz wrote:
It is typical of gun nuts that they are uncultured and uneducated.
And I don't know if this is true country wide, but where I live, none of the police support gun restrictions, that should say something right there.