(12-21-2012 08:03 PM)michelin Wrote: I visit these gun threads when I want to have a good laugh. Indeed, the idea that people would massively " create their own guns " if there were no guns on sale in the stores, [...]
You seem to have no concept of human ingenuity in the face of a people being told what they can and cannot do, and you're
highly underestimating your peers. That said, people won't have to make guns because
there are already so many in circulation here in America, registered and unregistered, that there will still be plenty to go around.
If you really think laws would make guns less available, how about a look at what the criminilization of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and heroine have done for those markets. If you're in here laughing it's simply because you don't understand human nature very well.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you may want to pop your head out and have a look at the real world...
Quote:[...]or that knifes are as deadly as a rifle in a mass shooting is simply...HILARIOUS!
Hilarious indeed.
Hilarious that, one, you would put those words in any gun advocate's mouth - feel free to link where someone in this forum, or any credible person anywhere, has said that. My wild guess is that you've framed a counter-argument, and likely a poor one at that, to say something it wasn't exactly meant to say.
Hilarious too that you assume the only other weapon in the world besides a gun is a knife.
How about a bomb? How about a flame-thrower? Incidentally, these two weapons were responsible for two of the biggest massacres in U.S. history, and here's the clincher,
in both cases they were home-made. Yes, gun attacks are more common, but for a madman with an agenda, anything will do.
But nah, taking guns out of stores should solve our problems.
Quite hilarious, actually.
Quote:There is a lot of rationalizing masturbation by the NRA folks. Stubborn people who rarely or never travel, see themselves as the center of the world and feel threatened by anything except weaponed human beings.
You seem to be the one engaging in the mental masturbation here. Did you make that NRA-folk profile up yourself? Interesting attempt at ridiculing people who believe differently than you...
Quote:The sad thing is they are responsible for keeping an endless cycle of mass shootings going. As if they were afraid that the number of shootings would reduce if effective gun laws end with this absurd situation.
Look at the statistics.
Look at the facts. Did you even watch the video at the beginning of this thread? The guy makes some great points you're conveniently ignoring. Gun-free zones have
more shootings. Areas of America where concealed permits are easily obtained have
far less violent gun crime.
The sad thing? The sad thing is that people like you may be responsible for more people dying than need be simply because they're afraid of guns and what they represent to their fact-ignoring minds.
(12-20-2012 02:45 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote: Why don't you americans bring up the fact that every mass shooter seems to be on some sort of big pharma drug ? I know the media always hides those facts, but it always comes out. Why is that arguement never hammered home again and again ? I bet you could go back over the last 30 years or so when all the mind altering prescriptions started coming out and find that almost all of the mass shooters were on prozac, paxil or whatever drug they pump into everyone now ?
We would (and we do) if gun-control freaks wouldn't freak the hell out and try to pry our pistols out of our "cold, dead hands" every time some asshole pulls off an attack.
This becomes the issue because politicians and the media make it the issue.
And here's another thing. Most guns-rights activists are all for getting to the bottom of this sickening problem, but a common denominator among those of us who believe in the right to defend ourselves with a gun is that, for us, why something happens is not as important
right now as
how to react to what happens when it happens. Especially since it keeps happening again and again.
Look, most gun-toters are realists.
And that means that rather than sit there wondering if Psycho-boy is picking off kindergartners with a rifle because his feel-good pills fried the part of his brain that allows him to empathize with other humans, we simply want the right to pull out our .45, a useful tool in such a situation, and make the motherfucker obsolete. Right then and there. Or at least be given a chance to try.
There's a time and a place for everything.
And then, after we've exercised our God-given right to defend our own lives and other innocents present, then we can take a hard look at Pscyho-boy's meds and other possible causes. Whatever it is, it's not going to be a problem we can solve overnight.
Until then, we simply want the choice to fight back or neutralize these horrible incidents as they occur. Not too much to ask, if you ask me.
Beyond that, the hard truth is there will always be people who massacre other humans. Guns or no guns. Prozac or no prozac.
It happens less now, not more - that's the story the media doesn't tell. Maybe because it's not the story that sells.
Or maybe because they don't want us to have our guns anymore.
Either way, taking guns away will make things
worse before it makes them better, and my bet is it won't
ever make them better.
Quote:It's very surprising to see so many pro-gun people on a forum that is centered on hooking up with chicks while traveling. Most of the pro-gun arguments in this thread revolve around "what-if" scenarios, that are essentially futile, because the answers to these what-if scenarios are found in the many of the same pussy paradises that are lauded on this forum, such as Sweden, Poland, Hungary, etc because private citizens AREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS.
It doesn't surprise me
at all to see so many pro-gun guys on here.
Players are realists. Pro-gun people are usually realists as well. Players take their own lives into their own hands; they refuse to let the rest of the world dictate how they will live and they refuse to be victims to the cards handed them.
The same is true for many men who are pro-gun.
As for your list of pussy paradises, you conveniently left some other countries off that are very dangerous yet still considered pussy paradises.
Or how about one other country that isn't dangerous? One that fits right in with your Scandinavian models of perfect countries is Norway, a perfect fit and the site of one of the most tragic massacres in human history. If I remember correctly, that guy's attack was like shooting fish in a barrel
due to the absence of guns carried by private citizens...
Quote:To those who suggest that gun control infringes on your freedoms, my experiences in the US, in comparison with those in Europe, tell me the opposite. Here's one example: Two years ago some fat cuban guy pulled a knife on me at LiV in Miami because I was trying to pull a girl off his table. He was a full foot shorter than me, but at the time I was very scared. Had I been in Europe, I would've punched him and that would've been the end of it.
No offense as I've never met you, but you really want us to take your word that you would have punched some guy in the face that was
wielding a knife at you and had
friends with him...
if only you weren't worried those friends were strapped?
Look, I've been in some dangerous situations where I had to somehow backpedal or straight up back down to keep myself out of danger, and I understand the need to rationalize when the end result threatens your manhood, but that's all this seems like here. As men, we have a strong urge to explain our moments of self-perceived weakness away.
But it wasn't weakness. Backing down was the right thing to do, and it's the right thing to do in that situation
no matter what country you're in.
But there are a few different ways to look at the situation. One is to say it sounds like
you were being the bully and the aggressor. Trying to pull some smaller guys' woman out from under his nose with all his friends watching? That's aggressive behavior.
Even still, was pulling a blade a reasonable course of action? Probably not. Do you think he'd have pulled that blade if he thought you were carrying? Probably not. What if he would have lunged at you with that blade? Would you have been better off if you had a pistol and the know-how to use it - assuming you even had time?
I think yes.
In any event, I think you'd have a major problem if you tried to deck a guy under these circumstances anywhere in the world. Guns or no guns.
Try it under similar circumstances in gun-free England, for instance, and report back to let us know how it unfolds.
Quote:But being in Miami, I had no doubt his homeboys were strapped, so I had to back up and walk away like a little bitch.
This is where you really lose me. Do you really think his "homeboys" were carrying those guns under the auspices of legitimate concealed carry permits? I highly, highly doubt it. Take the guns away from law-abiding citizens, and these boys will still be packing. No question about it.
So the story makes little sense in the scheme of the big issue here, which is gun control in an America already saturated with guns that aren't going anywhere. Under such circumstances, taking away guns pulls them from the hands of upstanding citizens but does
nothing to disarm the homeboys.
Cuban gangsters simply don't listen to the sign on the wall that says "No Guns." No matter what country they're in.
Quote:I wasn't the aggressor. I just like to go up to sexy chicks and talk to them, put my hands on them, and fuck them. In Europe I'm free to do that. In pro-gun areas of the US, I've got to be careful.
Which scenario sounds like freedom to you?
Freedom to grope another man's woman in front of them and rely on your size to keep him timid? Sorry, Bro, but it
does sound like you were/are the aggressor more and more, and I'd take our style of freedom over yours any day of the week.
Though it still doesn't seem to have much bearing on the topic of discussion...
(12-22-2012 05:23 AM)michelin Wrote: That's right maccc, the average RVF pro-gun forum member who travels is NOT like the average NRA chump stuck in a village in Kansas, stuck in a "BAD GUYS" versus " GOOD GUYS" beta-mindset. For NRA people, both the average Gun fetichist as the aggressive weapon sellers, those "BAD GUYS", then, are typically evil rambos, NOT nerdy 18 to 20 year olds who take mummy's rifle to school. LOL.
Most RVF members, on the contrary, are open minded folks who will eventually open their eyes when traveling abroad, Europe, Asia, the Pacific...
Odd. Traveling extensively in Europe twice and living in Thailand for 5 years, a country with incidentally far more gun crime than America (regardless of a 10-year sentence for carrying), has simply failed to "open my eyes" quite yet. In fact, I'd say that one of the worst parts of living abroad is that foreigners are not typically allowed to carry or own guns at all.
I love world travel. I love new cultures. But I'm not blind enough to fool myself that every one except for Americans has it all figured out. It's hardly the case.
Quote:The problem lies mostly, but not always (Newtown, Conn) in areas with little or no contact with the civilized world, where the imaginary "Frontier" does not only exists in Western movies but where 19th century mentality is lived on a daily basis.
First off, if the problem only exists in areas with little or no contact with the civilized world, how is taking away guns from people who allegedly have no contact with the outside world going to change anything? If these people supposedly living in the 19th Century even exist, what's it to you or the rest of the world and our gun violence issues?
I think we both know your assessment of the source of this "problem" is flawed. You're just painting pro-gun people with a brush so you don't have to actually give their
very rational points your consideration.
Not to mention the ludicrousness of this statement when considering that nearly all massacres of the kind that just happened take place in gun-free zones, suggesting that maybe these theoretical rednecks with their "frontier" mentality might not have it so backwards after all.
Try this on for size:
"
There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.
Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children."
https://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/...n-control/
Yep, those uncivilized, gun-toting, 19-century-thinking Rednecks don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Screw the facts...
Be careful with that link, People; that ignorant frontiersman might teach you something...
Quote:I vowed never to return to my beloved USA, as long as there are people fetichzing amendments (!) instead of caring for others, where many people cherish the idiotic slogan "Some people play golf, others bowl. I shoot", where people imagine "protecting" their families "Western style", while putting at danger a WHOLE community by filling their homes with some semi-automatic rifles.
That article you linked is a super-biased piece based on what they asked "normal Americans." First-hand statements from a selected group of people. Each carefully picked to make the point they want it to make while attempting to sound somewhat balanced.
Not exactly the most credible source, and the ones you selected are certainly not the most accurate portrayal of the average gun-owner.
By the way, there are ignorant people all over the world, from each country, who say stupid shit and who don't "care for others." Bigots everywhere. You could go to any place on the map and rack up retarded opinions of the big issues from ignorant people more than happy to give them to you, but something tells me you wouldn't get so squeamish because they weren't Americans.
So, I'm no big patriot by any means, but if that's your criteria for deciding never to return, you may have bigger problems than being born an American.
Once the rose-colored glasses are taken off, any traveler or expat can see that nowhere in the world is perfect.
On another note, just about any gun these days is semi-automatic - it might be just that you aren't entirely clear on what that means. To go further, nearly ever household in Switzerland has a semi-automatic or
automatic rifle on standby. It make a great "tool," and their low crime rates can attest to that.
I've always liked the Swiss. They're realists. And I don't think their government will become tyrannical anytime soon...Nor will anyone be getting far unloading a gun in public.
But, it's okay because they're not ignorant Americans, eh?
Quote:One comment in the NY TImes is spot on:
"First law that needs to go is giving gun manufacturers nearly complete immunity from lawsuits by survivors. Followed quickly by laws that empower survivors to sue the companies for every literally bloody dollar they have made.
Signed: A lifelong Hunter & Gun Owner who would never, never, never join or associate with the NRA in any way shape or form, who laughs at any idiot walking around with a gun on display and would welcome any regulation or tax that would get firearms with the sole purpose of killing humans gone. Some of us actually take quite seriously the little 'rule': Thou. Shalt. Not. Kill."
So long. Time for a change, folks. Who's afraid of a change?
Sure - thou shalt not kill. Aside from yet another blatant example of mixing church and state here in good ole' America, that's fine, but
what about the use of deadly force to take out someone who is firing a gun at groups of innocent children?
I don't remember the exact quote, but I believe it was a Dean Koontz novel where he wrote that refusal to defend oneself against a mortal attack was the equivalent of passive suicide and therefore a sin as well.
Of course, he's just a fiction writer, but what's your take? Is it a sin to allow someone to kill you and not fight back?
Is it a sin to watch children get shot and not fight back - to not protect them?
Or, even worse, is it a sin to deny others the right to defend themselves and their children against an attack of this nature? To tell them they're not allowed to arm themselves?
If you want to base your life around high moral standards like "thou shalt not kill" for any reason and at any cost, go right ahead, but excuse the rest of us if we want the right to pull a trigger in the name of saving ourselves when there's no other choice.
As for the commentor you quoted above, the guy's an idiot or a liar if he claims to be a hunter yet ignore the fact that guns built to kill animals can also be used to kill people. And it isn't difficult to turn just about any gun into an automatic if you want to.
The guy's not being realistic.
Guns are a part of our society. They're not going anywhere anytime soon, and they're not the only method of killing people - or even of killing large populations of people.
(12-22-2012 09:08 AM)michelin Wrote: Guys, get real. Times change, people change, governments change. This is the 21st century, not the 19th century. No arm is going to protect you from an abusive government.
Oh? Says who - you? On what grounds do you make such a claim? Because of how you "feel?" Because you "trust" them not to abuse their power?
You're quite the optimist. To say government oppression and tyranny is only possible in another era or another country is naievete at its worst. Hell, it's happens today in America, one of the worst police states in the world and a supposed "land of the free."
But the danger of it getting worse if we lost the 2nd amendment is very real. Hopefully that will always be nothing more than a theoretical subject of debate.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - George Santayana
The men who wrote our Constitution were not perfect, but they were trying to learn from history. You'd do well to follow their example.
Quote:Dude, an accident is not the same thing as a massacre. Check your Dictionary.
Of course not. But if someone is going to throw a link to a news story every time someone gets shot, as if it's some rapidly growing snowball that's out of control (rather than the decreasing trend that it really is) and try to pass that off as argument, they're going to get train wrecks and car accidents thrown in their face.
The point is that it's a sorry excuse for an argument. Isolated incidents mean nothing and add nothing to a debate on gun control.
Another point of the retort is that every tool can be misused, especially guns. It doesn't mean outlawing them completely is the answer. A saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater comes to mind. You can't just outlaw everything that causes death.
And even if it were the best option, throwing out random incidents isn't doing anything to further that cause. It's nothing more than an emotional outburst.
(12-22-2012 11:48 AM)michelin Wrote: My friend, for your record: Adam Lanza and most other nerds were no criminals, but normal schoolboys, who grow up, and have access to candy, cars and some guns. Which one of the three is most lethal?
Ignorance starts where one is blind to change. Afraid of actually learning something?
THe simple truth is: the abundance of guns is screwing many communities. And so it will be in the future. The reason? A lethal mixture of ignorance and stuborness to change. Go ahead and give 'm people candy ang guns.
R.I.P to all future victims (estimate: around 2958 in 2013. Yes, this could have been avoided)
The first mistake you make is assuming criminilization would do anything about the abundance of guns. Prohibition does not work, especially in America.
Not to mention that if Adam Lanza didn't have a gun and didn't know where to get one, he could have just as easily pieced together some homemade bombs after reading the Internet - he was a smart kid and would have found a way. You're the one who seems stubborn on this point; just as you seem stubborn to face the fact that massacres only happen where guns are not allowed to be carried by law-abiding citizens.
Did he steal the gun from a law-abiding citizen? Yes. Would it have been handy for another law-abiding citizen, an armed teacher, for instance, to shoot back at him, regardless of where he got his gun?
Considering that
he blasted himself at the first sign of armed resistance, I'd say it would have been very handy indeed.
(12-22-2012 11:14 PM)RioNomad Wrote: 300 million armed Americans certainly have a much better chance of protecting ourselves against an abusive government than 300 million unarmed Americans do. Are you saying that since we still may lose if it were to happen, that we should give up our guns now and not try to fight if that time ever comes?
I am sure that the Jew's never thought they would be exterminated by the German government. I don't believe it will ever happen on US soil, but I'm not ready to say it won't ever happen, and sure as hell not ready to give up my guns.
I am not one of those people who believes the government orchestrated 9-11, or that they want to round us up or enslave us. However, I do realize that governments have done terrible, terrible things at all points in history, and I do know that however unlikely it is to occur here, thousands of people have been murdered in the past who also believed the same.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
Well said, Rio!
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 4 users Like Aliblahba's post:
![[Image: StenmkII_animation.gif]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/StenmkII_animation.gif)
