Originally posted by: ifesfor
Originally posted by: Jfrag Teh Foul
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Why do you guys buy guns?You aware of the consequence if something go bad in your life and you decide to do a stupid move right?
TEXT!!
BTW.The thread i start is the most popular thread of this board .Maybe some people took it personally that i points you, american, but its because i am not from US and this is an american board.I also consider the name of this thread by pointing you american, because your country have the highest ratio murder/per habitant on the planet.
Peace!
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Why do you guys buy guns?You aware of the consequence if something go bad in your life and you decide to do a stupid move right?
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Originally posted by: Jfrag Teh Foul
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Why do you guys buy guns?You aware of the consequence if something go bad in your life and you decide to do a stupid move right?
TEXT!!
BTW.The thread i start is the most popular thread of this board .Maybe some people took it personally that i points you, american, but its because i am not from US and this is an american board.I also consider the name of this thread by pointing you american, because your country have the highest ratio murder/per habitant on the planet.
Peace!
So, if you don't live here then why do you care about the murder rate here and the fact that many Americans own guns? I've lived here all my life and I can't think of anyplace I'd rather live quite frankly. It doesn't concern me as an American so why does it concern you so much?
Edit-We take our rights seriously here! Don't like it? Too fvcking bad. Deal with it!!!
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Its not really about caring about the murder rate, but its just to have a good conversation/topic( are a very succeful one i can say!!! ).It doesnt concern me, but with this topic i can understand a bit more your point of view.
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Its not really about caring about the murder rate, but its just to have a good conversation/topic( are a very succeful one i can say!!! ).It doesnt concern me, but with this topic i can understand a bit more your point of view.
So let me sum it up.
1) You knew that some of us care about our rights (yes, all of them)
2) You made a post about one of our rights knowing it would rile us up
3) You really don't care
4) You were just trolling
5) ...
6) Profit!
Am I right?
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Its not really about caring about the murder rate, but its just to have a good conversation/topic( are a very succeful one i can say!!! ).It doesnt concern me, but with this topic i can understand a bit more your point of view.
So let me sum it up.
1) You knew that some of us care about our rights (yes, all of them)
2) You made a post about one of our rights knowing it would rile us up
3) You really don't care
4) You were just trolling
5) ...
6) Profit!
Am I right?
- M4H
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Its not really about caring about the murder rate, but its just to have a good conversation/topic( are a very succeful one i can say!!! ).It doesnt concern me, but with this topic i can understand a bit more your point of view.
So let me sum it up.
1) You knew that some of us care about our rights (yes, all of them)
2) You made a post about one of our rights knowing it would rile us up
3) You really don't care
4) You were just trolling
5) ...
6) Profit!
Am I right?
- M4H
So what's Phase Two???
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Its not really about caring about the murder rate, but its just to have a good conversation/topic( are a very succeful one i can say!!! ).It doesnt concern me, but with this topic i can understand a bit more your point of view.
So let me sum it up.
1) You knew that some of us care about our rights (yes, all of them)
2) You made a post about one of our rights knowing it would rile us up
3) You really don't care
4) You were just trolling
Am I right?
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: mwtgg
So what's Phase Two???
Why, glorifying gun violence of course.
One shot, two shot, three shots, four shots
All I hear is gunshots
This is where the fun stops
Bodies drop, hit the floor,
Music's off, party stops,
Everybody hit the door
Somebody's lickin shots off
- M4H
Originally posted by: ifesfor
4) ...... no
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Its not really about caring about the murder rate, but its just to have a good conversation/topic( are a very succeful one i can say!!! ).It doesnt concern me, but with this topic i can understand a bit more your point of view.
So let me sum it up.
1) You knew that some of us care about our rights (yes, all of them)
2) You made a post about one of our rights knowing it would rile us up
3) You really don't care
4) You were just trolling
Am I right?
hmmmm.Some of you seem really shock with the topic i created and i really dont know why...
1) Yes, as everyone else, i knew and i care about my rights...same as yours...i didnt knew that owning a gun tho was a right for you as you said.
2) Absolutly not.If i knew i would have offend you by asking a simple question about your obsession with firearms,i would have never ask.Owning a gun is a right,but it seem that for some of you, its not about a simple right...but about survival.
3)I do care.I need opinions.Listening %$#@ like Michael Moore about your policies with guns is not really reliable.I need your true opinion about it.I wanted to know why you are so proud of showing your guns, while in the province i live, its totally forbidden to show a gun.
4) ...... no
Originally posted by: mwtgg
It all makes sense now. Those damn gnomes were part of the Underwear Mafia Local 113. Those bastards, I'm on to them...
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: mwtgg
It all makes sense now. Those damn gnomes were part of the Underwear Mafia Local 113. Those bastards, I'm on to them...
Careful dude, you f*ck with one local and you're f*ckin' with the whole union.
- M4H
Originally posted by: Vic
Right... like it isn't already illegal for a 14 year-old kid to carry a gun, much less shoot someone... :roll:Originally posted by: oslama
Here is an example of the american gun culture.
Americans are fvcking morons when it comes to understanding the use and impact of guns
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1534241&enterthread=y
Obviously the kid acquired the gun illegally and is a criminal. No one is trying to protect his rights. But that is no reason why law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to own and carry a gun.
Originally posted by: oslama
The gun culture reinforces that if you disagree with someone, you can just get a gun and shoot them to solve your problems.
Its not about illegality it is about morality and ethics. American culture is violent.
Originally posted by: oslama
Originally posted by: Vic
Right... like it isn't already illegal for a 14 year-old kid to carry a gun, much less shoot someone... :roll:Originally posted by: oslama
Here is an example of the american gun culture.
Americans are fvcking morons when it comes to understanding the use and impact of guns
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1534241&enterthread=y
Obviously the kid acquired the gun illegally and is a criminal. No one is trying to protect his rights. But that is no reason why law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to own and carry a gun.
The gun culture reinforces that if you disagree with someone, you can just get a gun and shoot them to solve your problems.
Its not about illegality it is about morality and ethics. American culture is violent.
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? So if your government controls your whole life, including your right to defend yourself from criminal elements, then you are NOT a slave to your government?Originally posted by: Lifted
Thank you for your opinion.
Move along now.
What I posted above was not my opinion. It is fact.
Why do you need a handgun to defend your home?
Will a shotgun or rifle not do the same job?
Would the streets not be safer if there were no concealed guns out there?
Again, gun control is not about taking away your right to own a gun, it's about taking guns off the street which are harmful to society. Other than police who have to carry them around all day, there is no need for the general public to have guns concealed on them while in public. If you are scared to walk the streets, get a taser or pepper spray.
That's a bunch of horsecrap. Find me a story of someone with a CCW permit who "harmed society". Have fun searching.
Yeah, that taser or pepper spray is really going to stop someone in their tracks. What's wrong with guns? Nothing. It's a tool, you perceive them to be bad, that's all.
Uhh, did I say people with CCW permit crimes? Stop putting words in my mouth. Is that the only way you can find something to disagree with in what I said, by rewritting the whole thing in your head into something which it isn't.
If there were no handguns available at all, then nobody would be able to carry them. Criminals included. Comprende?
:laugh:Originally posted by: Mookow
Assuming his problems involved too much freedom and not having enough objects stuffed up his cornhole, then yes, it has solved his problems.Originally posted by: oslama
The gun culture reinforces that if you disagree with someone, you can just get a gun and shoot them to solve your problems.Originally posted by: Vic
Right... like it isn't already illegal for a 14 year-old kid to carry a gun, much less shoot someone... :roll:Originally posted by: oslama
Here is an example of the american gun culture.
Americans are fvcking morons when it comes to understanding the use and impact of guns
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1534241&enterthread=y
Obviously the kid acquired the gun illegally and is a criminal. No one is trying to protect his rights. But that is no reason why law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to own and carry a gun.
Its not about illegality it is about morality and ethics. American culture is violent.
Originally posted by: ScottyS
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? So if your government controls your whole life, including your right to defend yourself from criminal elements, then you are NOT a slave to your government?Originally posted by: Lifted
Thank you for your opinion.
Move along now.
What I posted above was not my opinion. It is fact.
Why do you need a handgun to defend your home?
Will a shotgun or rifle not do the same job?
Would the streets not be safer if there were no concealed guns out there?
Again, gun control is not about taking away your right to own a gun, it's about taking guns off the street which are harmful to society. Other than police who have to carry them around all day, there is no need for the general public to have guns concealed on them while in public. If you are scared to walk the streets, get a taser or pepper spray.
That's a bunch of horsecrap. Find me a story of someone with a CCW permit who "harmed society". Have fun searching.
Yeah, that taser or pepper spray is really going to stop someone in their tracks. What's wrong with guns? Nothing. It's a tool, you perceive them to be bad, that's all.
Uhh, did I say people with CCW permit crimes? Stop putting words in my mouth. Is that the only way you can find something to disagree with in what I said, by rewritting the whole thing in your head into something which it isn't.
If there were no handguns available at all, then nobody would be able to carry them. Criminals included. Comprende?
And if there were no drugs available at all, nobody would take them, right? Your arguement depends on the existance of an all-controlling, all-knowing entity. Do you know how many machine tools are on the private world market?
Clueless.
Oh, and that idiot quoting Kofi Annan up there, would that be the same Kofi Annan that presides over the UN, that same UN whose African minions make a daily habit of raping and abusing local boys and women? I have relatives that have personally witnessed that on a daily basis, so no, I didn't get it off ABC news.
If those were free, armed societies, would the UN even be there to commit atrocities?
You didn't get the technology you're typing on through a society of unarmed peasants, that's for damn sure.
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Mookow
When they develop a tazer that will allow me multiple shots in very quick succession (multiple shots being defined as ~6; quick succession being defined as sub 1/4 second) that will also incapacitate someone with one hit (and that doesnt require a pause after that hit), I'll consider it. Also, it will need an effective range of 0-50 feet. Until then, it doesnt perform as well as the alternatives. I have yet to see a tazer that would fulfill those specs. If they exist, I would like a link so as to expand my horizons. However, if such a tazer is ever developed I highly doubt it will ever become legal for civilians to own at a price point comparable to a 357 revolver.
Now, you may think that there are some tazers out there that come close, or fulfill some of the above specs, and are thus "good enough". "Close" is not, and has never been, good enough. There are no rewards for finishing second place in a situation that warrants the use of a firearm.
Enough is enough. Where do you draw the line? When technology comes out that allows people to possess portable nukes, and if you indeed have twenty dozen people wanting to kill you, what keeps you from demanding the right to own one - under your rationale?
To me, anything above a guy owning a handgun and leaving it in the home crosses the boundary of possible risk to my rights and freedoms and safties, whether its the owner using it or the owner being careless with it and leaving it for someone else.
Under my rationale, sometimes referred to as the "Second Amendment", the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The key word there is "arms". If the Second Amendment was meant to allow tanks, fighter planes, attack helos, nukes, etc., it would have read "arms and ordnance". Which clearly it does not.
However, your original quoted post saidMy post hinted that tazers are not as effective as guns, and thus they are not likely to replace them. Your response did not attempt to rebut my statements as to how tazers are not equally as effective as guns. So, either your initial post should have been condensed to "I have no idea what I am talking about regarding weapons, but I know they scare me, and I think people that own them do it for the power trip", or you simply forgot to present relevant facts. Please let us know which it is.But for many people, American or not, they're just rednecks on a power trip. If this statement makes you mad, ask yourself why stun guns or tazors haven't phased out the majority of guns used for self-defense. And yes, the technology is there to make these weapons very usuable.
In America, and every place they can afford it, its ALL about the ego.
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Mookow
When they develop a tazer that will allow me multiple shots in very quick succession (multiple shots being defined as ~6; quick succession being defined as sub 1/4 second) that will also incapacitate someone with one hit (and that doesnt require a pause after that hit), I'll consider it. Also, it will need an effective range of 0-50 feet. Until then, it doesnt perform as well as the alternatives. I have yet to see a tazer that would fulfill those specs. If they exist, I would like a link so as to expand my horizons. However, if such a tazer is ever developed I highly doubt it will ever become legal for civilians to own at a price point comparable to a 357 revolver.
Now, you may think that there are some tazers out there that come close, or fulfill some of the above specs, and are thus "good enough". "Close" is not, and has never been, good enough. There are no rewards for finishing second place in a situation that warrants the use of a firearm.
Enough is enough. Where do you draw the line? When technology comes out that allows people to possess portable nukes, and if you indeed have twenty dozen people wanting to kill you, what keeps you from demanding the right to own one - under your rationale?
To me, anything above a guy owning a handgun and leaving it in the home crosses the boundary of possible risk to my rights and freedoms and safties, whether its the owner using it or the owner being careless with it and leaving it for someone else.
Under my rationale, sometimes referred to as the "Second Amendment", the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The key word there is "arms". If the Second Amendment was meant to allow tanks, fighter planes, attack helos, nukes, etc., it would have read "arms and ordnance". Which clearly it does not.
However, your original quoted post saidMy post hinted that tazers are not as effective as guns, and thus they are not likely to replace them. Your response did not attempt to rebut my statements as to how tazers are not equally as effective as guns. So, either your initial post should have been condensed to "I have no idea what I am talking about regarding weapons, but I know they scare me, and I think people that own them do it for the power trip", or you simply forgot to present relevant facts. Please let us know which it is.But for many people, American or not, they're just rednecks on a power trip. If this statement makes you mad, ask yourself why stun guns or tazors haven't phased out the majority of guns used for self-defense. And yes, the technology is there to make these weapons very usuable.
In America, and every place they can afford it, its ALL about the ego.
You want facts? The bulk of Tasers (95%) are sold to law enforcement. If its good enough for the pros, I fail to see how its not good enough for you... oh, yeah... because you're on one of those power trips.
Two hundred years ago, a community of people carrying their own firearms united in a militia may stand a chance against a young government. Please don't tell me that you believe that is still the case, with the technology available. I don't blame you though - most of you power trippers hide behind the 2nd.
I do concede that the vast majority of people who CCW are law abiding citizens. However, if you manage to upset one of those aforementioned citizens and upset them, they may cease to be so law-abiding. Arm them with something that can kill, and they get their way whether they're right or wrong.