Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

 

2005-12-02 02:03:26
RhadamanthysSCC
Member
+2|6962|Perth, Western Australia

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I watched the ABC special about Pope John Paul's life today and during the scenes showing Poland being invaded by the Germans I wondered how different things might have been had the people of those toppled nations been armed.
Nothing, unless those civilians were daft enough to confront an army. In which case there would've been a whole lot more dead Poles...

Look at the results of armed resistance by civil populations in the Second World War, it's not pretty, whether it was Russian partisans, French Maquis, Tito and his buddies or any other resistance movement. All that happened was that the invader/opressor oppressed the people even further, killing 10 for each of theirs who died, torturing suspects, torching entire villages and the like. There's an argument that the forces used to hunt down partisans could've been better used on the frontlines and that the resistance movements shaved year(s) off WW2 but given many garrison troops were 3rd rate or police style forces at best it's not an argument I'm convinced by.

For a modern day parallel look at Iraq or Afghanistan, the armed resistance movements there cause more hurt to their own people than those they consider oppressors and do them no good at all in the political/moral stakes. Surely diplomacy is a better answer than bullets in these so-called enlightened times?

Or am I just being naive?
2005-12-02 02:18:56
nzjafa
Member
+2|7004
i think the reason they kill so much in iraq is because they don't want democracy. the attitude we get from america regarding it is 'democracy works well for us, so it must work well for everyone.' it doesn't. ask most iraqi citizens, even thought they hated him they preferred it under saddam than the american occupation. i think there would be not nearly as many suicide bombings there if the american forces were to leave.
2005-12-02 05:51:36
freebirdpat
Base Rapist
+5|6991

RhadamanthysSCC wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I watched the ABC special about Pope John Paul's life today and during the scenes showing Poland being invaded by the Germans I wondered how different things might have been had the people of those toppled nations been armed.
Nothing, unless those civilians were daft enough to confront an army. In which case there would've been a whole lot more dead Poles...

Look at the results of armed resistance by civil populations in the Second World War, it's not pretty, whether it was Russian partisans, French Maquis, Tito and his buddies or any other resistance movement. All that happened was that the invader/opressor oppressed the people even further, killing 10 for each of theirs who died, torturing suspects, torching entire villages and the like. There's an argument that the forces used to hunt down partisans could've been better used on the frontlines and that the resistance movements shaved year(s) off WW2 but given many garrison troops were 3rd rate or police style forces at best it's not an argument I'm convinced by.

For a modern day parallel look at Iraq or Afghanistan, the armed resistance movements there cause more hurt to their own people than those they consider oppressors and do them no good at all in the political/moral stakes. Surely diplomacy is a better answer than bullets in these so-called enlightened times?

Or am I just being naive?
Please explain how we would have ousted Saddam, or the Taliban in Afghanistan without Military action?
If the Gulf War didn't happen in '91, Saddam would still today have the 4th largest army in the world.
2005-12-02 07:16:08
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974

Tyferra wrote:

FeloniousMonk:
More deaths my friend. If Poland had means to defend itself, the German army would of had more of a reason to shoot back. More deaths on both sides, as the German army would have won, and the Holocaust in Poland still would have taken place.
But they would've had the abliy to fight for their lives instead of being shipped to concentration camps by the truckload. I would much rather die defending my life and freedom than being tossed into a gas chamber. If the Jews in Germany and Poland had the means to defend themselves then at the very least they would've stood up to those evil maniacs if not turned the tide of the war itself. Imagine six million Jews with guns; you don't think that would've made a difference?

The point is that they would have a choice instead of simply being slaughtered like cattle.

Which is kind of how it is in America. People can defend themselves, which gives those who wish to hurt them, more reason to shoot and kill people. People shooting both ways means people are killed on both sides.

Consider this: If an armed offender walked into my house and decided to steal my things, and I have a gun. By your definition, I will defend myself by shooting this person, thus protecting myself, my family and my posessions. He is dead, or badly injured, nevertheless, no longer a threat.
Or, as I go for, or pull out a gun, the offender gets the better of me, and shoots, either injuring/killing me or one of my family. He then gets away with what he had come for in the first place.

Consider the alternative: The offender sticks me and my family at gunpoint so he can steal my things. No incident, he gets away with some of my material posessions. No-one is hurt so far. He has had no reason to hurt me. Posessions are posessions, and are not all important.
Have you noticed that in this way no-one has gotten hurt, nether me, my family, nor the offender, who may not have even had any ammunition for his weapon?

Maybe he was there, not to steal, but commit murder? Highly unlikely. What good would shooting unarmed victims do him? He wasn't threatned by them, the only outsome is that a person is dead and he is in a shit-load of... well, shit.

Only a very, very few people barge in simply for the sick pleasure of wanting to hurt someone. So few that I'm starting to believe this only happens on the silver screen. They want items, they want money, but hurting someone is never an option because it does not help the offender one bit. Only unless the attacker feels threatned does he hurt anyone, and his victim having a weapon is the only way he feels threatned.

I finish by saying that I agree whole-heartedly about your definition of Michael Moore, but don't blame him. He is only after all, and by his own definition, a Stupid White Man.
Do you really believe that's how the criminal mind works? If that invader gets the drop on you then you've failed to properly train yourself. What if his intention was to rape your daughter? Only happens in the movies, right? I don't know what the rape and murder rate is in your country but around here it's high enough that people need the ability to defend themselves. I won't tell any woman that she's not allowed to fight off a predator, I have no right to do so.

Again, the crime rates in states with private gun ownership are lower than in states with restrictive gun control.  If someone breaks into my home, I don't care if he's there to steal a TV or to hurt me; it's my home and since I don't know his intentions I will percieve any invader as a threat to my safety. I'm not going to shoot on sight, of course, but the moment I sense an imminent threat from this person I wouldn't hesistate to eliminate that threat.

Yeah, in your example the offender wasn't hurt either. So now he can continue stealing from others until one day finding a family that decides to fight back...only they're unarmed so he stabs the parents in a panic and orphans the kids. Is it likely? No, but it's certainly possible and I'd rather remove the threat when I have the chance.

If you're comfortable allowing someone to hold you and your family at gunpoint, so be it. I'm not. I'd rather have a choice.

Only unless the attacker feels threatned does he hurt anyone
I'm sorry but that goes against countless years of research into criminal psychology.
2005-12-02 07:20:00
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974

Tyferra wrote:

Hmm... maybe your right and American's are just violent assholes...
J/K
I know a lot of Americans and they're good mates to me, also you Americans on here arn't bad. I just enjoy debating with you.


Edit: Just going back to that poster you put on FeloniousMonk, I find the tagline interesting: Save lives. Kill before they can kill/hurt you. It dosn't save a life as such, just protects the one that matters.

I find the image of mothers picking their kids up from kindergarten while sporting Assault Rifles in their handbags, chatting to their friends, ("Oh that's a lovely colt, (coat... geddit?) where did you find it?,) funny... is that wrong?

...This is irrelevent to my previous argument. Just a side-note.
Yes, some lives matter more than others. Harsh thing to say? Sorry, it's true. The life of that mother picking up her kids is more important than the life of a drug addict who breaks into her home, putting her children in danger, to rob them. Her life is more important than the convicted child molestor living in her neighborhood.

Everyone has a right to life but the moment that one person threaten's another person's right to life, the former gives up theirs.

Assault rifle? A smart gun owner would carry a small, reliable, concealable weapon in her purse or perhaps even in a concealed holster.
2005-12-02 07:22:17
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974

freebirdpat wrote:

That is from Wikipedia. Personally I think that anyone that uses a gun in a criminal behavior should get life in prison. Sadly the justice system, and frankly the society we live in is quite flawed so that we have to put limits  on things for the bleeding hearts.
I agree, though I feel that our justice system needs a harsh revamp. The release of nonviolent drug offenders and the repeal of mandatory sentencing laws for possession would cut the number of prisoners nearly in half. At which point you could keep violent offenders in there for life instead of giving them ten years to get more pissed off at society and learn how to be better criminals from other inmates.
2005-12-02 07:28:10
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974

RhadamanthysSCC wrote:

Surely diplomacy is a better answer than bullets in these so-called enlightened times?

Or am I just being naive?
With all due respect, yes. Diplomacy doesn't work everywhere, bullets do. We're no enlightened, we're animals. We always have been and always will be and we can't deny that anymore than we can deny that nature itself is inherently violent.

Do you believe it's better to lay down and allow invaders to take over your country and slaughter your people? I doubt diplomacy would've worked with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Saddam. Murderers like that don't listen to diplmacy but they perk up when the people they're trying to walk on fight back and do some damage.

I can't believe that it's so strange to people that I'd rather die fighting for my freedom than thrown in a mass grave with my family and slaughtered like livestock. Call it American egotism if you will but I'll die free before I hand over my liberty to anyone.
2005-12-02 07:31:18
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974

nzjafa wrote:

i think the reason they kill so much in iraq is because they don't want democracy. the attitude we get from america regarding it is 'democracy works well for us, so it must work well for everyone.' it doesn't. ask most iraqi citizens, even thought they hated him they preferred it under saddam than the american occupation. i think there would be not nearly as many suicide bombings there if the american forces were to leave.
Iraqis preferred Saddam? I'm sorry but what Iraqis are you talking to? Have you been there? Have you interviewed them? Do you realize that the only people fighting against the US forces are the former supporters of Saddam and those that want to rule that nation in a religious dictatorship? Do you realize that there are three distinct tribes of people living in Iraq, two of which who are much better off now that they Ba'athists aren't the elite ruling class?

Have you been to Iraq? Did you think it was a friendly happy place before this war?
2005-12-02 13:54:28
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7013|Noizyland

Phew, you've posted so much that it's going to be a mission responding to all this.

Firstly, your responce to me:
I'm not going to touch on the World War Two issue again, as it's beginning to become irrelevent. Unfortunatly, we can't re-write history here.

Your comment about a violent offender breaking into my house, and he gets the drop on me. If this happens I havn't properly trained myself right? There are so many ways this scenario might be acted out, that it is difficult to see how this would go. Maybe as this offender broke into my house either me or another family member could rush and get a gun? Maybe he does get the drop on us and rounds us all up before this can happen? Or maybe I'm carrying a gun at all times, which I believe is what you are campeigning for, (forgive me if I'm mistaken.) Maybe even, an unarmed offender sneaks into my house without my knowlege, finds my gun, (which is why you are meant to keep firearms and ammunition in a separate place in New Zealand,) and uses it to harm me and others. It's too hard to say.
In most cases, the offender will be there to rob me. As I stated in my previous post, items are items, and if everything goes his way, no-one is hurt.

I'm going to act here as though I have a daughter, (I'm eighteen, so not yet, but maybe someday.)
As you suggested, if the offender has a side aim of "raping my daughter," chances are that yes, I would want to fight to stop this, yet I still don't believe a gun is not the best way of doing this. The offender could already have shot me if I had a gun, or if I make sudden movements, he could shoot whoever he has the gun pointed at, (in this case I believe it would be aimed at my daughter to stop me doing any such thing.) Rape is a horrible disgusting thing, but I'd allow it if the alternative was the death of my daughter. That's just my personal preferance mind you.
As I said, it's difficult to predict how such an occurrence would happen, so I'm going to leave this issue here.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Tyferra wrote:

Only unless the attacker feels threatned does he hurt anyone
I'm sorry but that goes against countless years of research into criminal psychology.
Please elaborate on this. Yes, there are always acceptions to a rule, there are people who would intentionally hurt someone, either with a firearm or other weapon. But why do you think an offender brings a weapon to a crime?

Reason one: To assert authority, and make sure victims do what they say.
Reason two: To protect themselves.

Yes, I agree with you, guns are a means of protection, but to defenders and offenders. If you want to leave it to chance, one group is going to be shot, (and unless military training has occurred then the chances are about 50/50.)
It's a question of risk, and what risks you are willing to take.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Everyone has a right to life but the moment that one person threaten's another person's right to life, the former gives up theirs.
Brilliant point, but this does not determine who's life is forfeit. Since both have guns, the offender is more likely to use his weapon.

Secondly to your comments aimed at nzjafa, (fellow countryman you must understand.)

I've tried to steer away from the war in Iraq as it is a war zone which is quite different to violent acts occuring in a relitivly peaceful society. My father until recently worked beside an Iraqi migrant. He was an extremly interesting person, as he and his family had dealings with Saddam himself. His father was high up in the army, and he had photos of himself and his father with the dictator.
He also had scars on him from when he was captured by Saddam's private policeforce and tortured, he moved to New Zealand obviously to escape this, and had to leave his family behind.
Saddam is an evil dictator. He ordered the extermination of thousands of Sunni Muslims. Nzjafa's comments are valid however becuase there were those who prospered under this regiem. They are the people who are fighting now, and even though I disagree with them, there are quite a few of them. They are the people that did prefer Saddam.

It is hard to say what is going to happen in Iraq, many believe it's going to be a Quagmire like Vietnam. You can't start presuming that if Coalition forces moved out peace would be restored, infact such a notion is ridiculous. What the Coalition could have done was buy the Iraqi army. Governments could be reforged but those in power would not use the army for their own means. Terrorists who refuse to stop attacks would no longer be enemies of America, or other Coalition nations, but be criminals in the light of their own people.

Of course, some people will never be happy, and attacks may still continue. I still belive that this option would have worked better then the slow burning fuse that Iraq has become.

Last edited by Tyferra (2005-12-02 13:58:43)

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2005-12-02 14:26:50
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974
If you feel more comfortable taking the chance without a gun, that's cool. I am better protected with a firearm than without. I only demand that my right to choose how to defend myself not be infringed upon because others chose a different means. The guns in my home are not causing crimes nor is my right to own contributing to crimes. Gun laws are not stopping gun crimes but armed citizens are. Again, if my neighbor doesn't want to own a gun, I don't really care. His choices are not my business but my choices are not his.

As for Iraq, yes the people that are fighting now were protected and preferred living under Saddam's rule. I specifically pointed that out. The point is that those people, those who are fighting and who preferred living under Saddam, are those who would oppress and murder the majority of the Iraqi population that would rather live in freedom. To be honest I don't give a damn what the Ba'athists want anymore than I would've given a damn what the Nazis wanted. Cut from the same cloth.
2005-12-02 14:37:04
kn0ckahh
Member
+98|6977|netherlands, sweet lake city
I live in holland  and in stead of letting people kill other people with guns we let people kill themselves with softdrugs like weed and hasj  and not the american powerless weed     we have  very very strong weed and we just chill out with some weed with your neighbour than killing each other with guns. i mean i understand youre ppl are very stressed and non relaxed because lots of people have guns and you dont have weed  just change that and you will have a nice relaxed life without being scared of psychos with guns. and its youre own choice if you smoke to much and you life is still kinda like in your own hands and not of the guy with the gun because softdrugs arent that addictive if you compare it with the power some ppl (think they) get with a gun

Last edited by kn0ckahh (2005-12-02 14:39:58)

2005-12-02 14:41:52
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974

kn0ckahh wrote:

I live in holland  and in stead of letting people kill other people with guns we let people kill themselves with softdrugs like weed and hasj  and not the american powerless weed     we have  very very strong weed and we just chill out with some weed with your neighbour than killing each other with guns. i mean i understand youre ppl are very stressed and non relaxed because lots of people have guns and you dont have weed  just change that and you will have a nice relaxed life without being scared of psychos with guns
Hey now, unless you've tried medical grade Purple Haze from San Francisco, you can't say our ganja is powerless! :p Though I would love the opportunity to one day sample what the Dutch have to offer.
2005-12-02 15:24:08
kn0ckahh
Member
+98|6977|netherlands, sweet lake city
well i dont really know the difference but its treu youll get used to powerfull weed and if you just take more and pure it will have the same effect and more change of a head ache   (... hurting head dunno )

BTW: you got in a city i tought it was haasdrecht a real good coffyshop   it has like   australian  blow pipe sounds inside    you got like swingchairs   like  where your granny sits in     thats just like so relaxing

Last edited by kn0ckahh (2005-12-02 15:26:27)

2005-12-03 02:19:13
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7013|Noizyland

I think we wrapped this debate up nicely. If I ever meet you FeloniousMonk I'll buy you a beer. Just don't shoot me okay?

We'll leave the result to those goons who can judge debating contests. I'm happy with a draw though.

Last edited by Tyferra (2005-12-03 02:21:27)

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2005-12-03 08:53:13
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974

Tyferra wrote:

I think we wrapped this debate up nicely. If I ever meet you FeloniousMonk I'll buy you a beer. Just don't shoot me okay?

We'll leave the result to those goons who can judge debating contests. I'm happy with a draw though.
I'll get the second round.

The cool part about opinions is that no one has to be right or wrong; that's why they're opinions. Just don't misinterpret my intentions. My ultimate desire is for everyone to be safe and happy and healthy and free.
2005-12-03 14:03:51
{SiR}_XsnipeR01
Member
+0|6959
Here is my stance on gun control:

Now mind you I live in texas but my view has been the same all my life. I have lived in four places in my life Groton,Ct ,  Fort Worth,Tx,  Fort Hood, Tx,  Killeen, Tx. I have Lived In texas for 10 years and lived In Ct for 16 yrs.

kilroy0097 wrote:

Well my views on guns is rather preventive in a way.


I believe that no one who has commited a felony should own a firearm.
I believe that no one who has commited gun related crimes in the past and has been convicted should own a firearm. Which may fall into the felony clause but I am not aware of all gun laws so I can't be certain.
I believe that no one who has been diagnosed with a psychological disorder who is deemed dangerous or unstable should own a firearm.
There are laws against people like that and I agree with you totally.

kilroy0097 wrote:

I believe that no one under the age of 25 should legally own a firearm of any sort. Hangun or Rifle.
This is where I don't agree with you. At the age of 18 men and women give there lives for our country but yet in the country that they serve and protect they wait till they are 21 to legally own a handgun. You tell me this that same man or women is at home with there childern and/or wife/husband and there house gets broken into by some retarded 19 yr old kid high on whatever and with your thought pattern they can't defend their family. You see what im saying doesn't make sense to me.

Now I am a Legal Registered Handgun owner also I have a Concealed Handgun Permit and have had one for 5 years. I also have a Federal Firearms License or FFL Class 3 owner/dealer License. Here is a website to explain this to people that do not know what that is. http://federalfirearmslicense.com/ . In short I can own/sell full auto weapons.  I do infact own 6 full auto weapons.


kilroy0097 wrote:

I also believe that parents with children that have guns within their homes should have them secured with not only a trigger lock but also have them in a safe and secure location. Be it a safe or a lockbox. This must be done to ensure that their child (regardless of age) does not have access to the firearm in any way.
If you look at statistics and you will see that most of the at home accidental shooting where because:

A) The child was NOT trained on gun safety.

B) The parents failed to lock up the weapon in a proper manner.

Now I grow up around guns all my life but at the age of 5 my father started to train me in the rules of gun safety also he warned me if he ever saw me screwing around with any gun (I.E. BB Gun all the way to high powered rifles, Mind you at the age of five I was not firing a high powered rifle,) that he would beat me back to the stone ages. This rule still stands today !!!!! I will do the same for my children and I hope that they do it for there children.

I am glad that I live in a country that allows me to own a handgun: This the reason I was 22 years old and I had someone try to rob me and I had my handgun and I drew down on him and in the short of it he did not get my money and I was able to keep my life.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Do you really believe that's how the criminal mind works? If that invader gets the drop on you then you've failed to properly train yourself. What if his intention was to rape your daughter? Only happens in the movies, right? I don't know what the rape and murder rate is in your country but around here it's high enough that people need the ability to defend themselves. I won't tell any woman that she's not allowed to fight off a predator, I have no right to do so.

Again, the crime rates in states with private gun ownership are lower than in states with restrictive gun control.  If someone breaks into my home, I don't care if he's there to steal a TV or to hurt me; it's my home and since I don't know his intentions I will percieve any invader as a threat to my safety. I'm not going to shoot on sight, of course, but the moment I sense an imminent threat from this person I wouldn't hesistate to eliminate that threat.

Yeah, in your example the offender wasn't hurt either. So now he can continue stealing from others until one day finding a family that decides to fight back...only they're unarmed so he stabs the parents in a panic and orphans the kids. Is it likely? No, but it's certainly possible and I'd rather remove the threat when I have the chance.

If you're comfortable allowing someone to hold you and your family at gunpoint, so be it. I'm not. I'd rather have a choice
I AGREE WITH YOU TOTALLY AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In conculsion Ill state something that has been said before " Guns do not kill people, people kill people"

There has never been a case where a gun jumped out of nowhere and fire at a person. In all cases it has been that a person or persons handle the weapon the wrong way and did not follow correct gun safety and someone was hurt.

Last edited by {SiR}_XsnipeR01 (2005-12-03 14:16:23)

2005-12-03 16:42:58
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7013|Noizyland

Charlton Heston says "YEEEHAAWWW!!"

Question: Why do you own six firearms?
Just wondering.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2005-12-03 19:01:31
{SiR}_XsnipeR01
Member
+0|6959
Well I own more then that, I collect older firearms and unique firearms.  Large Cal. is what I like.

I have 14 different handguns from S&W sixshooters to Springfield Armory XD-40 40 cal. semi auto pistols.

23 Rifles (assult rifle included), range from .22 to 50 cal.

I also collect swords.


I love weapons and I love shooting. It a passion that I have.
2005-12-03 20:49:12
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
Americans are not "violent assholes ."

Hell we have yet to come up with any Holocausts or ethnic cleansing

so you would do well to keep your Dutch mouth shut.
Or else the next time some Nazi wants `to Rape your sister and Mom
the USA will just sit it out and catch it on CNN. Clear?

We do however have a section of society that has been on welfare for 18 generations, breed like rats and abandon there young, ( often by dropping them down garbage disposals) this cycle will not end. They just cant assimilate. Although everyone eles here can?
If you had these people in Germany for example instead of only Germans you would have identical problems and stats.
2005-12-03 21:19:02
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7013|Noizyland

I'm not Dutch. Why did you think I was Dutch?
And I said I was joking didn't I?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2005-12-03 22:55:44
{SiR}_XsnipeR01
Member
+0|6959

Horseman 77 wrote:

Americans are not "violent assholes ."

Hell we have yet to come up with any Holocausts or ethnic cleansing

so you would do well to keep your Dutch mouth shut.
Or else the next time some Nazi wants `to Rape your sister and Mom
the USA will just sit it out and catch it on CNN. Clear?
What the hell are you talking about and who the f^&k are you talking to? Did you take too many blows to the head as a kid or something? Where did that come from, one min we are all happy no real fights and then you come alone and go goddamn crazy. Take a chill !!!!!!!! 

Are you talking to him/her

Tyferra wrote:

Charlton Heston says "YEEEHAAWWW!!"

Question: Why do you own six firearms?
Just wondering.
I thought that , his/her line of questioning was good and not meant to be mean or rude. In fact I was amuzed by it and had a laugh because as I look at it I though to myself "who in there right mind would own that many firearms" lol.

As for this comment

Horseman 77 wrote:

We do however have a section of society that has been on welfare for 18 generations, breed like rats and abandon there young, ( often by dropping them down garbage disposals) this cycle will not end. They just cant assimilate. Although everyone eles here can?
If you had these people in Germany for example instead of only Germans you would have identical problems and stats.
Who are you talking about?
2005-12-04 01:02:19
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974

{SiR}_XsnipeR01 wrote:

I also collect swords.


I love weapons and I love shooting. It a passion that I have.
One very funny thing I've noticed often among young people is that they think swords are incredibly cool while guns are grotesque in design. For some reason people believe it's more honorable to jam three feet of steel into someone as opposed to less than half a cubic inch of lead.
2005-12-04 01:09:45
DrDestruction
Utilityman
+1|7016

FeloniousMonk wrote:

{SiR}_XsnipeR01 wrote:

I also collect swords.


I love weapons and I love shooting. It a passion that I have.
One very funny thing I've noticed often among young people is that they think swords are incredibly cool while guns are grotesque in design. For some reason people believe it's more honorable to jam three feet of steel into someone as opposed to less than half a cubic inch of lead.
Im not saying I agree with young people, but I can see where they are coming from.

1.  Swords can be used by anyone with any access to building materials at all, while guns are generally owned only by those that can afford them directly or afford the means to procure them.  This probably goes along with many views of how the world should be "absolutely equal with nothing different" of many young people.

2.  Combat with a sword involves getting up close and fighting someone else (almost always).  A gun, on the other hand, can be fired from a long ways away and more often than not, hits a target without them knowing.  The same reason why literal backstabbing, and, often, sniping, is frowned upon.

I don't agree with these, however.
2005-12-04 01:22:50
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6974

DrDestruction wrote:

Im not saying I agree with young people, but I can see where they are coming from.

1.  Swords can be used by anyone with any access to building materials at all, while guns are generally owned only by those that can afford them directly or afford the means to procure them.  This probably goes along with many views of how the world should be "absolutely equal with nothing different" of many young people.

2.  Combat with a sword involves getting up close and fighting someone else (almost always).  A gun, on the other hand, can be fired from a long ways away and more often than not, hits a target without them knowing.  The same reason why literal backstabbing, and, often, sniping, is frowned upon.

I don't agree with these, however.
Ever made a sword? Yeah, not that easy. Depending on the style, a good sword with decent balance and strong enough to withstand repeated use is likely going to cost more than a handgun. For example, one of the most popular types of sword is the katana (nerds love them) yet if you spend less than four figures on one you bought yourself a piece of shit. Even then, I've handled some katanas worth upwards of two grand and the balance was still terrible.

I agree on the second point, however what people tend to forget is that to properly use a sword requires far, far more training than it does to use a gun. A gun is also far more effective in a self defense situation. If a person is shot without knowing it then the shooter is likely a criminal; when used in self defense the target is probably going to know he's about to be shot because he's probably doing something that warrants it.


Also, sniping is only frowned upon by people who don't understand what it is. No offense to you but it's a terrible injustice to associate genuine snipers with sick, twisted killers who take long range shots on their victims. Snipers, sharpshooters trained for military or law enforcement purposes, are life savers. One shot, one kill often means that a battle won't take place or that a hostage is rescued from the grips of a madman.
2005-12-04 01:53:50
{SiR}_XsnipeR01
Member
+0|6959

FeloniousMonk wrote:

One very funny thing I've noticed often among young people is that they think swords are incredibly cool while guns are grotesque in design. For some reason people believe it's more honorable to jam three feet of steel into someone as opposed to less than half a cubic inch of lead.
First when I say swords I don't mean those POS swords you find in malls that are made of 440 stainless steel, im talking about swords that have been hand-forged from T10 high-carbon steel, made from scratch and have had the loving care put into them.  I have swords from all over the world Spain, Japan, China just to name a few. My swords range from Apocalypse Rider Sword by Marto to the famous Japanese Tsunami Katana. Now I buy for quality not crap. I also have Battle axes.

Like I said

I LOVE WEAPONS AND I LOVE SHOOTING THATS MY PASSION

I do agree with you that most young people think that way, but here is what I have to say about that.

There is no HONOR in killing another human and you if think (not you personally monk) that killing someone with a 3 feet of steel or a bullet (for all that matters) is honorable then you have never had to take another persons life. Killing is killing and that memory will haunt you all of your life. Trust me when I say that to watch another person die because of your actions is something that is very hard to live with.  I do not want anyone to kill another human, ever, but if it comes to that I would like to be armed.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Ever made a sword? Yeah, not that easy. Depending on the style, a good sword with decent balance and strong enough to withstand repeated use is likely going to cost more than a handgun. For example, one of the most popular types of sword is the katana (nerds love them) yet if you spend less than four figures on one you bought yourself a piece of shit. Even then, I've handled some katanas worth upwards of two grand and the balance was still terrible.

I agree on the second point, however what people tend to forget is that to properly use a sword requires far, far more training than it does to use a gun. A gun is also far more effective in a self defense situation. If a person is shot without knowing it then the shooter is likely a criminal; when used in self defense the target is probably going to know he's about to be shot because he's probably doing something that warrants it.
You hit the nail right on the head here amen to that. I would dare to say when the Katana blade is in the right hands it can be as deadly as a firearm.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Also, sniping is only frowned upon by people who don't understand what it is. No offense to you but it's a terrible injustice to associate genuine snipers with sick, twisted killers who take long range shots on their victims. Snipers, sharpshooters trained for military or law enforcement purposes, are life savers. One shot, one kill often means that a battle won't take place or that a hostage is rescued from the grips of a madman.
I wish everyone would see it that way but most think that a sniper is a killer/assassin.
!!!!!!!RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!ONE SHOT ONE KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I take pride in my weapon collection, I take care of all my weapons and do not misuse them.

As for age im not young but im also not old. lol

Last edited by {SiR}_XsnipeR01 (2005-12-04 02:09:22)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard