Alien Loves Predator Forum Index
         
FAQFAQ    SearchSearch    RegisterRegister    ProfileProfile    Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages    Log inLog in 
gats
    page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Alien Loves Predator Forum Index -> Utter B.S.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2901
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:53 pm    Post subject: gats Reply with quote

Out of curiosity, what are people's opinion of guns and conceal and carry permits?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aramor



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 14141
Location: On a cyborg unicorn pony!

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope we never get gun laws in Holland like there are in the US... people be getting killed then a lot me thinks...
_________________
Photoshopperholic wrote:
Mighty Lord Aramor


Fail of the day:
Syn wrote:
your balls didn't get suck
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
AAATripper



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 1085

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Firearms are OK in the hands of Law-abiding citizens and other such people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2901
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I hope we never get gun laws in Holland like there are in the US... people be getting killed then a lot me thinks..."

Actually, guns laws differ on a state-by-state basis, although there are some areas where states exhibit reciprocity. Some states are more restrictive. Take NY. There was a recent case where a guy was flying to... I don't remember... Philadelphia, I think and he had legally checked his gun with the airline. He was purchasing a car and was going to drive it back to where he was from. Anyway, he had check with all laws governing the states that he was going to be driving through and he made sure he was abiding by all laws. Well, due to weather or plane malfunction -- not sure, he was re-routed to NY where he was promptly arrested and put in jail for having a gun. Doesn't make sense to me. I believe the NRA paid for a this person's legal fees.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying... (Aramor)... nor am I sure of the laws in Holland. Are you saying that you think if guns were permitted (or that people could apply for a conceal and carry permit) there would be more killing? I'm not trying to start an argument where we bitch each other out back'n'forth -- just trying to figure out what your opinion is.

The reason I ask is that there was a recent shooting nearby, where an 18 year old kid went into a "mall" and shot/killed 5 people before being taken down by police. Of course, in the aftermath there is a lot of debate about gun laws and I'm curious about peoples' opinions on gun laws/restrictions etc. As an aside, from what I know, there was no one carrying and I don't believe this person had a permit to carry -- regardless, a permit would be for a handgun, not a shot gun as was used in the incident.

Finally, I'm not looking for people to pick fights, rather just state opinions (and perhaps offer justifications or be willing to debate another's ideas).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Azrael



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 4810
Location: AWOL no more

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I don't have the rights and permit to carry wepaons with me. Nor do I even need the ability, but I do think it's not a very good thing to do.

I am against concealing weapons.
_________________
Only the strongest will survive.

Married to SpideyGirl.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aramor



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 14141
Location: On a cyborg unicorn pony!

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cfos: well, I hear a lot about people being killed with firearms in the US, mainly because they are not that hard to aquire. Now, if that would be the same case in Holland, I think that the same "incidents" would happen.

I know for sure that I would buy a gun... I even have some people I'll add to a list to shoot. But luckily, I can't just get a gun that easy.

See what I mean?
_________________
Photoshopperholic wrote:
Mighty Lord Aramor


Fail of the day:
Syn wrote:
your balls didn't get suck
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Aurelyn
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 3578
Location: Aw Hell No!

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, over the last few years the whole culture of guns has visibly increased in Ireland - ten, or even six or seven years ago someone being shot would have made front-page headlines all over the country, but now it happens every day, in every city. As far as I know, it is still not possible to get a license to own or carry a gun, except for hunting, which only includes shotguns and some rifles (and crossbows, which is kinda cool), but a massive rise in the number of gang-related shootings etc. is leading to innocent 'civillians' getting killed. A few months ago a gunman opened up on a house where a party was going on with an automatic rifle and killed one girl and severely injured several others. A few years ago the gardai (police) would never ever carry firearms, but now, while the average cop on the street doesn't, the guards have fully armed squads that see regular use.

Personally, I hate guns - I shot a rifle once deer hunting and the whole experience kinda freaked me out. They offer a means of killing another person with no real skill or training (and the concurrent discipline that that would entail), and I don't think anyone should be able to carry one, concealed or not...
_________________
Da Fro-mastah of da aLp Forums!

Master Chainsaw wrote:
Aurelyn becomes enraged by imbecilic displays of illiteracy, as is his wont.


Simon_Says wrote:
Sal would know. He stole many jobs from guys named Shaun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robot Chicken Koko



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 1130
Location: gettin' my learn on

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm mostly undecided, but I don't think making guns an illegal item for law-abiding citizens makes the guns harder for non-law-abiding citizens to acquire. Most guns non-law-abiding citizens get aren't from stores that run background checks. They are probably purchased from other non-law-abiding citizens. The 18 year old probably got his gun from his parents, and probably the father. Alot of accidents have happened in the United States involving kids getting their hands on guns and either doing what that kid did, or playing a game of cops and robbers.

I heard somewhere that the guns laws, most lax in Israel and Switzerland (of all places), have led to lower crime than in the United States, and that in Brazil, where the gun laws are very strict, crime is high. But in the US, and especially Brazil, there are a lot of other factors to consider that could explain for that.

Do I ever want to have a concealable firearm: nope. A shotgun will do just fine.

@cfos: Do they make gun-racks for Porsches?
_________________
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." - Albert Einstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2901
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aramor: Interesting point. I do think the availability of guns does vary on a state-by-state basis, though and if one did some statistics, it would show some states being more "dangerous" than others. The year I moved to New Orleans (1994) it was the "murder capital" of the US -- It dropped to number 2 in 1995 being surpassed by Gary, Indiana.

In some states, it is easier to get guns in some states (e.g. Texas) than others -- just like in some providences/neighborhoods it is easier to get drugs than others. Personally, I think it is far easier to get drugs than guns and there are more people killed by drugs (via guns?) or alcohol than guns. There used to be a bumper sticker that read, "Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my gun." Of course, that is a different topic for another thread.

I can understand the views of people that don't like guns and think that they can do plenty o harm. But, it is my case that a number of people that commit the crimes are going to commit them regardless of whether they have a gun or not.

Also -- interesting to hear about what people from different countries think: Please (if you don't mind), state where you are from when describing your opinion.

Koko -- depends on the Porsche. There was an article in the recent, local Porsche mag that was an April Fool's joke that had a Porsche where the gun rack was standard. Here is a pic -- I posted this on a Porsche Forum and got a few better ones.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blaster
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 2544
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:
But, it is my case that a number of people that commit the crimes are going to commit them regardless of whether they have a gun or not.


I would argue that a number of people use are going to use guns to commit a crime are going to acquire guns whether or not guns are legal to possess. So far, I think we have been overly sanguine about the ability of a government to enforce a ban on guns.

I really can't get into this too deeply now; I have to go to class. Sad
_________________
Context is everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Aurelyn
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 3578
Location: Aw Hell No!

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:
But, it is my case that a number of people that commit the crimes are going to commit them regardless of whether they have a gun or not.


But without a gun it is much harder to commit certain kinds of crime - such as muggings and hold-ups. A garage I worked in a few years back was held up at knife point and I just kept the guy talking while one of the other lads went round behind him and dinged him with a wrench. On the other hand, I was mugged at gunpoint in NYC (didn't sour my opinion of the place btw!). Did I think twice before handing everything I had over?
_________________
Da Fro-mastah of da aLp Forums!

Master Chainsaw wrote:
Aurelyn becomes enraged by imbecilic displays of illiteracy, as is his wont.


Simon_Says wrote:
Sal would know. He stole many jobs from guys named Shaun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2901
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blaster brought up two good points -- Similar to what I said, people are going to get guns if they want to -- just like people can get illegal drugs. The US government can't ban all guns due to the 2nd ammendment. They can opt to restrict them and some states do enforce heavy restructions. But, just as with drugs, do they really work? No.

aurelyn also is correct in stating that having guns makes certain crimes a heck of a lot easier. Though true, I don't think that the people that get conceal and carry permits do so to break the law. Rather, the majority are trying to be congruent with the law. Also, the savvy criminal could also use a prop or a toy gun (realistic) and a person may not know the difference -- not saying this was the case, but often times the small time bank/convenience store robbers do use fake guns -- lesser penalty if caught.

One assumption that I think most people make is that if someone gets the permit and carrys, that they are going to jump at all chances to play the vigilante (sp?). Great comic, btw. According to my state laws, the use of deadly force is permissable only if you or your family's life is at stake. If you and your family (significant other, etc.) were eating at a mall and you heard gunshots a few stores away, are you "required" to jump up and save the day if you are legally packing? No. Though people are likely being hurt and potentially killed, is it your responsibility to do something? No. Of course, it is nice to be a hero and save lives and if everything works out it is great, but I think that many people assume that if you have a permit: (1) You always carry, and (2) you will jump at the first chance to use it (brandishing laws, aside). I don't think this is the case with the majority of people that do carry, legally and I think that many people would probably flee with everyone else regardless of whether they are packing. Of course, that is just my opinion and is open to debate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aramor



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 14141
Location: On a cyborg unicorn pony!

PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know that if I were allowed a to carry a gun, I'd have it with me when I'm going out... I always hate drunk people insulting and intimidating me, and more than once I wished that I had a gun to shoot them or something.
_________________
Photoshopperholic wrote:
Mighty Lord Aramor


Fail of the day:
Syn wrote:
your balls didn't get suck
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2901
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You would likely be arrest for brandishing, or murder perhaps. What does "Applenaise" mean? Is it mayonaise made with apples? Surely not...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bloo



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 3137
Location: vertigo

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:
What does "Applenaise" mean?


To me, it sort of looks like applaud. Or however you spell it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Munan
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 3232
Location: Living on my own

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:
The US government can't ban all guns due to the 2nd ammendment.


I don't get this argument. If the ammendment is not good, you change the ammendment.

I'm not saying it's bad, it just strikes me as silly to say that you can't apply certain legislature because the law says you can't.

If, in a democracy, enough people believe the law should be changed, then the law changes.

Personally, I very strongly believe that in a modern democratic country, the government should have the exclusive right to commit violence. Since no one else has this right, no one needs the means to commit violence, like guns. Hence the posession of guns should be severely restricted in a modern democratic country.
In return for implementing the government's exclusive right to commit violence by denying its citizens the right to posess guns, part of the social contract between the government and its citizens should be that the government offers its citizens protection and makes sure that those who commit violence get punished. This means building up a non-corrupt, servile and transparent police force, penal system and social work. This means spending quite some tax money in order to make a country save for everybody so that people (like Aramor and me living in Holland) feel save, content and don't even strongly wish to carry guns.

I think this is much more importment than the actual ban on guns: to establish a feeling among the citizens that they don't need that gun since their government will protect them.
_________________
The Justified Ancient of Mu Mu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ipsa



Gender: Gender:Female
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 1631
Location: Wherever God takes me.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:
US government can't ban all guns due to the 2nd ammendment.

Amendments can be changed, altered, or revoked. Example: the 18th was issued and the 21st repealed it (these are the amendments dealing with Prohibition of alcohol). Check out Article 5.
But maybe it doesn't apply to the Bill of Rights? I don't remember. Razz
_________________
"Yeast devil! Back to the oven that baked you!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2901
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, well, that's all good... assuming people WANT it repealed or changed.

I mean, it has already been said:

"If, in a democracy, enough people believe the law should be changed, then the law changes."

Just to play devil's advocate:

"Personally, I very strongly believe that in a modern democratic country, the government should have the exclusive right to commit violence. Since no one else has this right, no one needs the means to commit violence, like... alcohol [sic]." Sure, I changed one word, but the number of injuries, deaths, rape, abuse and what not resulting from the use of alcohol has got to be much greater than guns, right? Should we just stop with guns? Or do we have to rely on peoples' judgement and acknowledge that regardless of whatever one does, there are going to be "bad" people. There was an interesting article in the local paper a few days ago written by a Canadian journalist who was describing a similar shooting incident. What had gotten lost there, and is surely getting lost in the aftermath of the Trolley Square tragedy in Utah is that there is one person that is responsible for this: the shooter. Currently, in Salt Lake, the shooter in this most recent tragedy is now considered a "victim". Sure, his family migrated from Bosnia when he was 8 or something and in all likelihood, he saw something "bad"... but didn't the rest of his family witness this? Should we be watching for the next one to snap? Fast forward 10 years and people are describing him as a "good kid". Delve into the records and he was brought up on juvinile charges at a young age for throwing rocks at a girl. He pulled a knife on a landlord at age 11. A school dropout who got into fights when he attended school. Witnesses at the shooting describe the shooter as having a smile on his face while taking aim (from the shoulder -- not just randomly shooting from the hip) shooting and then shooting his "victim" again. How come his father didn't notice the shotgun box sitting in plain view in his son's room downstairs? People that what to commit crime are going to commit them, just like people that want "illegal" drugs are going to get them and use them. Does anyone really believe that a law banning/restricting guns is going to work? Before you answer, ask yourself this: Have you ever taken a drink before you were a legal age to drink?

"I think this is much more importment than the actual ban on guns: to establish a feeling among the citizens that they don't need that gun since their government will protect them."

I agree. What country can serve as a model?

"Amendments can be changed, altered, or revoked."

True, yet this one won't. I mean, we are still dealing with a country where a large population would vote strictly against a woman (or a "minority" (Obama)) running for president because she is a woman (or a "minority") regardless of whether they are a better candidate. It's not right, but that is what will likely happen. Personally, I hope I'm wrong.

I do kinda like that line from an episode of 24 that said something like, The Constitution, Bill o Rights (whichever, I don't remember) was written so long ago where people didn't have to worry about a nuclear weapon being deployed and killing thousands in a matter of seconds. Sure, things are open to revision, but ask yourself this: Do you want the current administration to do the writing?

Now, though it may appear that I am defending guns, I am only arguing a position. As an aside, how would we compete in the Summer Olympics without guns? I mean, shooting is an olympic event... What about farmers or people living in rural areas that are populated by bears? Should we force them to move? What about hunting? Personally, I don't hunt -- I really don't want to kill anything other than those nasty box-elder bugs that find their way into my home. I do enjoy shooting targets or clay from time to time. I consider myself responsible and the majority of people I know don't know I own a "gat" nor do I whip 'em out to show all would-be trespassers. Likewise, I keep alcohol in the house -- which is perhaps the far more deadly weapon. I also "stockpile" cigars so that I may kill myself and guests with my second hand smoke should I not be able to kill them with the alcohol. Yeah, this may be an extreme example, but, as that screaming woman from The Simpsons would say, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" *L*

I do believe this is an intersting issue because it is a real hot button that triggers instant reaction. The problem is that people become selective in what they choose to ban or restrict, as pertaining to their lifestyle. I am no different. *L*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Munan
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 3232
Location: Living on my own

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:
The alcohol argument...



... is rubbish, because alcohol is not a means to commit violence. It might be a cause, but it is not a means, solely in existence to commit violence.

Mental disorders, pretty women and irritating students have all caused violence, just like alcohol and drugs. Guns don't cause violence, they are used to cause violence.

So if someone is drunk, insane, jealous or irate, methinks it's a good thing he or she has very limited, or rather no access to guns. Which actually strengthens my argument.

Quote:
I agree. What country can serve as a model?


Well, I won't say it goes for all citizens here, but as I said, Aramor and me feel quite content with gun regulations here in Holland. That would probably go for the majority of citizens of countries like Sweden, Denmark, Finland (with the possible exception of the D.), Germany, England (where, until recently, even the police was not carrying guns), hmm.... probably most European democracies west of the Ukrain...

Quote:
As an aside, how would we compete in the Summer Olympics without guns? I mean, shooting is an olympic event... What about farmers or people living in rural areas that are populated by bears? Should we force them to move? What about hunting?


The fact that these people need guns (they're allowed to carry guns in Holland as well) does not mean that everybody should have access to guns. My argument is strong regulation, not banning. If you need a gun for your job and everybody agrees you do, well, then you get to carry one. If not, why would you want to?
_________________
The Justified Ancient of Mu Mu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2901
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"... is rubbish, because alcohol is not a means to commit violence."

Not true, in some cases it is a means to commit violence. How many criminals often say they committed such-n-such act because they were under the influence of some drug (alcohol, included)? How many people have used alcohol as some means to either get courage in order to commit such-n-such act? Example: There are many cases where kids drink alcohol and then commit vandalism (often to schools, or bums/vagrents).

"So if someone is drunk, insane, jealous or irate, methinks it's a good thing he or she has very limited, or rather no access to CARS [sic]. Which actually strengthens my argument. "

NOW, your argument is strengthened. MORE death and harm is caused by drunk driving. I mean, if you know you are going to drink a beverage that is going to impair judgement, why are you getting into a vehicle? Sure access to alcohol is "strongly regulated" (oh wait... that doesn't really work now does it?)... I'm not sure what is to be done about the jealous or irate.

"quite content with gun regulations here in Holland."

Please elaborate on what the gun regulations are. All I could find out was that there are some 700 or so gun clubs in 2k4 and you mentioned that some people can carry.

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=6769

"My argument is strong regulation, not banning. If you need a gun for your job and everybody agrees you do, well, then you get to carry one."

I agree. But who is going to determine what sort of "jobs" necessitate a gun? Will a panel be formed for this? What I am interested in is what people actually consider to be strong regulation. It is easy to throw out words like "strong regulation" without people having the same concept of strong regulation. As an example, New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the US, but are you going to tell me they have the lowest gun crime? What is wrong with the strong regulation in NY that it still has the level of gun crime that it does?

As an aside, what is your take on "sports" like boxing? There is no other purpose (other than violence) for boxing, right? What do we do with that? Should people be trained to box or wrestle at such young ages (kids in junior high can particpate in high school wrestling)? What about attending sporting events? Haven't there been some wayward fans wrecking havoc at european football games so much so, that there was talk about having to either cancel games or play in empty stadiums? How much violence surrounds sports? Granted, I think that the fans over there are far more aggressive in how they view their teams, but are most of the fights/riots perpetuated with or without the use of alcohol?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aurelyn
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 3578
Location: Aw Hell No!

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:
As an aside, what is your take on "sports" like boxing? There is no other purpose (other than violence) for boxing, right? What do we do with that? Should people be trained to box or wrestle at such young ages (kids in junior high can particpate in high school wrestling)? What about attending sporting events? Haven't there been some wayward fans wrecking havoc at european football games so much so, that there was talk about having to either cancel games or play in empty stadiums? How much violence surrounds sports? Granted, I think that the fans over there are far more aggressive in how they view their teams, but are most of the fights/riots perpetuated with or without the use of alcohol?


Now this argument is just getting daft. There are a large number of other purposes to sports such as boxing/wrestling and martial arts other than violence. Boxing and wrestling are both extremely skilled arts, and simply the practice and perfection of such an art brings enjoyment to those who train in them, as well as to those who watch. Many people box just to keep themselves in shape, since it improves reflex, coordination, muscle stamina, cardiovascular fitness etc. As for the whole football violence thing, we're getting into the notion of tribal/liminal culture as regards obsessive football fans, and I feel these people are as likely to commit violence at a match with, or without alcohol in their systems.
_________________
Da Fro-mastah of da aLp Forums!

Master Chainsaw wrote:
Aurelyn becomes enraged by imbecilic displays of illiteracy, as is his wont.


Simon_Says wrote:
Sal would know. He stole many jobs from guys named Shaun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cfos



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2901
Location: everyday I'm hustlin'

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Now this argument is just getting daft."

No, not daft, it is an aside which doesn't directly relate to the argument at hand. Marksmenship, whether with a gun or a bow, both are both "... extremely skilled arts, and simply the practice and perfection of such an art brings enjoyment to those who train in them".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Azrael



Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 4810
Location: AWOL no more

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guns are bad, Mmkay? Unless you're using it in a non-harmful way, Mmkay? Shooting innocents is bad, Mmkay? Get back at the wicked and cruel like I do, Mmkay?
_________________
Only the strongest will survive.

Married to SpideyGirl.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Munan
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 3232
Location: Living on my own

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:

Not true, in some cases it is a means to commit violence. How many criminals often say they committed such-n-such act because they were under the influence of some drug (alcohol, included)? How many people have used alcohol as some means to either get courage in order to commit such-n-such act? Example: There are many cases where kids drink alcohol and then commit vandalism (often to schools, or bums/vagrents).


Oh, come on! You do know the difference between a weapon and a toxic don't you? You cannot equalize them in the way you could compare, say, a sword and a gun or alcohol and marihuana. Alcohol may cause violence, it can not be used to commit violence. You're confusing the two and it's not helping your argument.

Quote:
MORE death and harm is caused by drunk driving.


Which is why that is illegal in most countries, innit? You're confusing human behaviour with legislation.

Strange argument you're having here. It runs a little like this: 'drunk driving causes people to die. Guns can be used to shoot people. People drive drunk. Therefore, why should we ban guns?'

Quote:
Please elaborate on what the gun regulations are


Well, I said that, didn't I? They're banned unless you are a member of a registered gun club or have a job that requires you to carry a gun.

Quote:
But who is going to determine what sort of "jobs" necessitate a gun?


It is called a government. Most modern countries have one.
_________________
The Justified Ancient of Mu Mu
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Aurelyn
Moderator


Gender: Gender:Male
Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 3578
Location: Aw Hell No!

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cfos wrote:

No, not daft, it is an aside which doesn't directly relate to the argument at hand. Marksmenship, whether with a gun or a bow, both are both "... extremely skilled arts, and simply the practice and perfection of such an art brings enjoyment to those who train in them".


Laughing Touche, but marksmanship as a sport cannot be equated with gun-violence in the same way that boxing as a sport cannot be equated with thuggish violence in the street etc.
_________________
Da Fro-mastah of da aLp Forums!

Master Chainsaw wrote:
Aurelyn becomes enraged by imbecilic displays of illiteracy, as is his wont.


Simon_Says wrote:
Sal would know. He stole many jobs from guys named Shaun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Alien Loves Predator Forum Index -> Utter B.S. All times are GMT - 5 Hours
    page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group