Are you packin? Show off your firearms!

Pages: 1 … 10 11 12

Index »
Community »
Everything Else »
Are you packin? Show off your firearms!

2008-04-06 11:14:45

#276

irishtop: Hopscotch Champion; +11|6374|Houston, Texas

Mek-Izzle wrote:
Idiot bashes Britain, but look at his name. I hate those American bastards that constantly bash Europe yet bring up their fuckin Heritage all the time and act all proud. I mean what the fuck.

Yes, Ireland is considered part of the British Isles, before you get into that shit.

I didnt mean to come off as bashing Britain, it was only intended as an example that is different to my society. I was only trying to illustrate a point that i cannot dictate how the 'system' works when i have no experience with how it is now. Personally, i think Britain is a pretty cool place, ive only been there once though.

Last edited by irishtop (2008-04-06 11:15:27)

2008-04-06 11:17:16

#277

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6855

its ok to bash Britain

2008-04-06 11:29:06

#278

mikkel: Member; +383|6812

irishtop wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Are you saying that collecting firearms, firing a wide variety of them, and hunting with them is a prerequisite for understanding their impact on society? If you are, then there's something you're really not understanding.

"Don't see the need" isn't a difference of culture. People die the same way no matter who they are and where they're from.
yes i am bc not treating them as something to be cherished and enjoyed is not understanding guns as a whole. and for seeing the need, it is a difference because a culture without guns heavily involved will treat them differently than one that has them in the society. justifying the need for restrictions on guns is like saying we shouldnt drive cars because ppl die. if you are trying to make the world safer, i suggest you think about these 2 things, 1) ppl kill ppl, a gun will not just go kill someone. even if you take guns away they are still available. there are untold hundreds of millions of guns in circulation its too late the get rid of them now. 2) the world is a dangerous place, many will die of things we may deem unjust. but no one makes it out of this world alive. taking away firearms does not make the region without them safer. Think of Washington d.c., murder capital of the US for the past 14 yrs i think? they have a ban on firearms, and look where it has gotten them. I would not feel safe if my government took away my rights to guns, i need to posses the ultimate power to inflict my will on the government (i.e. overthrow). And if you wish to argue the feasability of that first think of how the American revolutionaries defeated the best army in the world at the time, how the Vietcong slowly ran the obviously superior US military out of Vietnam, and how the guerrillas in the middle east are doing similar things right now. When Hitler came to power in 1933, he took away the civilians firearms. The government did not have to fear an armed uprising from the people. I need my government to fear me so that it truly is the people that maintain control.

So basically what you give me is a combination of patently flawed analogies which have already been addressed previously in this thread, obviously useless examples to prove a point and argue something that I'm not arguing against, empty statements, testosterone sob stories and an immense lack of critical thought.

You're apparently unwilling to read the discussion before posting, and since you're posting things that have already been covered multiple times, I don't feel any sort of desire to point out the obvious inaccuracies and flaws in your other arguments. If you're genuinely interested in why half of those arguments are flawed, read what has already been posted. For the other half, think it through just a few more times, and it should be obvious to you.

Since this isn't D&ST, this discussion is more or less spamming. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, feel free to PM me.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-06 11:31:21)

2008-04-06 12:18:09

#279

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6605|The Gem Saloon

mikkel wrote:
I know a handgun isn't ideal for home defence if only the weapon itself is considered. You have to consider the user, though, and for many users, a shotgun just isn't a feasible home defence weapon.

Parker wrote:
the advantage to using a shotgun is the area effect. while using a pistol, you must acquire the target, sight alignment, trigger squeeze.
shotgun.....point it in their general direction and shoot.

im sorry if you feel thats insulting, but everything i just said was fact.
It's simply not a fact that a shotgun is the better weapon for people who would be unable to operate one when the need comes.

yep, its a fact.
it just doesnt work with your argument, so you will dismiss it.

thats fine man, the way you talk about all of this, i really dont take you very seriously anyway.

after all, you have told me that a reduced powered .22 is a better weapon to defend your home with, than a shotgun.

many years of wisdom and experience there, obviously.

at the end of the day, i know ill be able to stop whoever comes into my house