So any gun enthusiasts here [Archive]

Comrade Pants

06/06/2012, 08:27 am

No idea how I was not informed of this thread. Maybe I should read the directory. Oh well, here's what I have at current:

This one is my very favorite gun. I call it Vera. /Jayne
It's a WASR 10/63 GP with Romanian wood furniture that my fiancee got me for Christmas last year. The rifle itself I got from my Dad for being the total opposite of a whiner after a surgery two years back.
http://i.imgur.com/LAUdh.jpg

Next is my EDC, a Smith and Wesson Sigma 40.
http://i.imgur.com/xwiOc.jpg

Finally, tomorrow I'm picking up a new firearm - an RIA M1911 GI in .45, naturally.
http://i.imgur.com/Xm9Gtl.jpg
I intend to have it replace my Sigma and possibly end up selling the former pistol for...
entertainment money in Berkeley. Yeah...

Note that these aren't my pics, I'm just too lazy to take any right now and lost the old pics.

Pants's love for guns is matched only by his love for his fiancee and hard liquor.
I'm getting this engraved on my M1911.

Vainamoinen

06/06/2012, 08:29 am

Comrade! Noooo! I thought you hated guns!!

Comrade Pants

06/06/2012, 08:35 am

Comrade! Noooo! I thought you hated guns!!

I own them so I can melt them later.

That was physically painful to say.

Rather Dashing

06/06/2012, 08:46 am

Pants's gun collection:

http://i.imgur.com/eMspd.jpg

Comrade Pants

06/06/2012, 08:49 am

Pants's gun collection:

(Horror)

http://i.imgur.com/2512M.jpg

Let me repost this so it won't be buried by travesties.

No idea how I was not informed of this thread. Maybe I should read the directory. Oh well, here's what I have at current:

This one is my very favorite gun. I call it Vera. /Jayne
It's a WASR 10/63 GP with Romanian wood furniture that my fiancee got me for Christmas last year. The rifle itself I got from my Dad for being the total opposite of a whiner after a surgery two years back.
http://i.imgur.com/LAUdh.jpg

Next is my EDC, a Smith and Wesson Sigma 40.
http://i.imgur.com/xwiOc.jpg

Finally, tomorrow I'm picking up a new firearm - an RIA M1911 GI in .45, naturally.
http://i.imgur.com/Xm9Gtl.jpg
I intend to have it replace my Sigma and possibly end up selling the former pistol for...
entertainment money in Berkeley. Yeah...

Note that these aren't my pics, I'm just too lazy to take any right now and lost the old pics.

KingOfZilla

06/06/2012, 09:19 am

No idea how I was not informed of this thread. Maybe I should read the directory. Oh well, here's what I have at current:

This one is my very favorite gun. I call it Vera. /Jayne
It's a WASR 10/63 GP with Romanian wood furniture that my fiancee got me for Christmas last year. The rifle itself I got from my Dad for being the total opposite of a whiner after a surgery two years back.
http://i.imgur.com/LAUdh.jpg

Next is my EDC, a Smith and Wesson Sigma 40.
http://i.imgur.com/xwiOc.jpg

Finally, tomorrow I'm picking up a new firearm - an RIA M1911 GI in .45, naturally.
http://i.imgur.com/Xm9Gtl.jpg
I intend to have it replace my Sigma and possibly end up selling the former pistol for...
entertainment money in Berkeley. Yeah...

Note that these aren't my pics, I'm just too lazy to take any right now and lost the old pics.

I'm getting this engraved on my M1911.

I to own a WASR 10. I'm amazed by its reliability. (which is strange for most WASR's.) How about yours?

I'm thinking about picking up a kimber 1911 myself. (Most likely a warrior model or if I can find one for the right price, and Gold combat.) Any suggestions?

Comrade Pants

06/06/2012, 09:31 am

I to own a WASR 10. I'm amazed by its reliability. (which is strange for most WASR's.) How about yours?

I'm thinking about picking up a kimber 1911 myself. (Most likely a warrior model or if I can find one for the right price, and Gold combat.) Any suggestions?

My WASR is great aside from a slightly canted front sight and some fit and finish issues. Still, it's the sort of gun I'd imagine would work even if I left it in storage for a decade or two with no maintenance. It's a damn fine gun.

As for 1911s, I tend to stay away from Kimber due to price, mostly. That being said, if you can afford them they make an excellent carry sized 1911. I have found that Rock Island (Armscor) makes a pistol just as good for much less. If you do end up going budget, avoid Auto Ordinance if at all possible.

They have "good" and "bad" periods depending on who owns the company at the time, and the delineation of these periods is a frequent topic of passionate debate in the Internet firearms community.

Back to Kimber, though, they tend to make more modern looking 1911s. I've found these to be like the AKs with rails on them, ie; not my taste. Therefore, I can't tell you too much about them. If you ask specific questions, though, I'm sure I can come up with something.

Why the hell am I not a gun dealer?

Noname215

06/06/2012, 09:34 am

My WASR is great aside from a slightly canted front sight and some fit and finish issues. Still, it's the sort of gun I'd imagine would work even if I left it in storage for a decade or two with no maintenance. It's a damn fine gun.

As for 1911s, I tend to stay away from Kimber due to price, mostly. That being said, if you can afford them they make an excellent carry sized 1911. I have found that Rock Island (Armscor) makes a pistol just as good for much less. If you do end up going budget, avoid Auto Ordinance if at all possible.

They have "good" and "bad" periods depending on who owns the company at the time, and the delineation of these periods is a frequent topic of passionate debate in the Internet firearms community.

Back to Kimber, though, they tend to make more modern looking 1911s. I've found these to be like the AKs with rails on them, ie; not my taste. Therefore, I can't tell you too much about them. If you ask specific questions, though, I'm sure I can come up with something.

Why the hell am I not a gun dealer?

Fuck.... I was wrong.

Comrade Pants

06/06/2012, 09:38 am

Fuck.... I was wrong.

It's true. I'm from Georgia. My old man taught me how to shoot when I was in the third grade and drilled me on gun safety even before that. Firearms have been a family tradition in my line since time immemorial and I firmly believe that the Second Amendment was created to safeguard the other nine and believe fervently in the Castle Doctrine.

Now, that said, I am also a pot smoking (never around my guns!) liberal. Go figure, huh? Assumptions can be a dangerous thing to go about making.

Alcoremortis

06/06/2012, 10:26 am

Why the hell am I not a gun dealer?

I don't know. Why the hell aren't you? If you worked as a gun salesman, you'd probably get discounts on guns as well.

Comrade Pants

06/06/2012, 10:33 am

I don't know. Why the hell aren't you? If you worked as a gun salesman, you'd probably get discounts on guns as well.

http://i.imgur.com/SCLfu.jpg

KingOfZilla

06/06/2012, 10:46 am

Comrade Pants

06/06/2012, 11:21 am

I have a friend who owns a Rock Island and says that, while it does shoot good, the build quality can vary. (His front sight flew off once while he was shooting.) I think the modern looking 1911's are really nice, but perfer "old school" look. Originally I was going to buy a Springfield GI, and that is still an option I'm considering.

By the way; Nice to meet another Georgian

Georgia? Nice. Northeast Georgia, here.

Yeah, I had heard that about RIA as well, which just reinforces my policy of handling the firearm before I buy it. My local gun shop is typically fine with a field strip, component inspection and reassembly. If I can do these three things, I can get a good sense of whether or not a firearm is worth my money.

I've heard a lot of good things about Springfields. If you can afford it, go for it.

Comrade Pants

06/07/2012, 04:16 pm

Also, I got my 1911 today. Shoots like a dream. A wet dream.

http://i.imgur.com/fi9Tdl.jpg

Noname215

06/07/2012, 05:15 pm

Bitchin’. The one I have has a more silvery color and a tarnished handle. Kicks like a mule, too.

Comrade Pants

06/07/2012, 05:35 pm

Bitchin’. The one I have has a more silvery color and a tarnished handle. Kicks like a mule, too.

The kick is pretty manageable, though this may be because I'm in a wheelchair, so my arms are fairly strong. How's your technique? Do you lean into the shot to absorb the recoil? That's very important.

KingOfZilla

06/08/2012, 09:20 am

Also, I got my 1911 today. Shoots like a dream. A wet dream.

http://i.imgur.com/fi9Tdl.jpg

Nice. I'll have to show you my 1911 when I get it. (or whatever I happen to get instead.)

Friar

06/08/2012, 11:57 am

What a piece of shit. Someone can tell that freaking hippie to go get high on pot and later p***y out when someone tries to rob him when he doesn’t have shit to defend himself with. He’ll be shitting himself in a corner while the house breakers steal all of his crap.

I own fifteens pistols, five rifles, and three shotguns. I’m all for the 2nd Amendment.

And as for my favorite gun, I would have to go with my M1911. Beautiful piece, and kicks like a mule.

Woah, I think that tirade of abuse was a bit uncalled for.

My view point join the matter is that they are an uneccesary evil. They will make the situation ten times worse. Take your robbery situation you mentioned. Guns are available in our country, so you can assume the criminal get hold of one pretty easily. They tell you you are being robbed, and you begin to reach for your gun. The gun they have at their sides which they had no intention of using they now feel compelled to in self defence. And what if they didn't have a gun? Well, they can grab yours whilst you are fumbling to get it out your pocket or bag 'or whatever. After all, you are going to be nervous!

Maybe its just the fact that I'm British and grew up without the threat of gun crime, but the whole idea seems daft. We were always taught that if someone does come and tries to mug you, you should let them. Your life is more valuable, and the authorities can always deal with it later. They have no reason to her you if you are complying. After all, you never know whether someone might have a knife hidden away. There's no cowardice in common sense.

But as I've said, it's probably just a cultural thing, but I thought I'd provide an alternate take on the situation. That's not to say that I think it's bad to appreciate guns, just making them attainable seems to be foolhardy. But I guess the u.s is so riddled with them now, that they have no choice but to keep them legal.

Comrade Pants

06/08/2012, 12:10 pm

Woah, I think that tirade of abuse was a bit uncalled for.

My view point join the matter is that they are an uneccesary evil. They will make the situation ten times worse. Take your robbery situation you mentioned. Guns are available in our country, so you can assume the criminal get hold of one pretty easily. They tell you you are being robbed, and you begin to reach for your gun. The gun they have at their sides which they had no intention of using they now feel compelled to in self defence. And what if they didn't have a gun? Well, they can grab yours whilst you are fumbling to get it out your pocket or bag 'or whatever. After all, you are going to be nervous!

Maybe its just the fact that I'm British and grew up without the threat of gun crime, but the whole idea seems daft. We were always taught that if someone does come and tries to mug you, you should let them. Your life is more valuable, and the authorities can always deal with it later. They have no reason to her you if you are complying. After all, you never know whether someone might have a knife hidden away. There's no cowardice in common sense.

But as I've said, it's probably just a cultural thing, but I thought I'd provide an alternate take on the situation. That's not to say that I think it's bad to appreciate guns, just making them attainable seems to be foolhardy. But I guess the u.s is so riddled with them now, that they have no choice but to keep them legal.

I can actually understand the logic and reasoning behind everything you said, except for letting someone rob you. Why should you reward their aggression with your hard earned money? Better to fire at them. If you drill yourself on drawing, you can get a tight response time down.

Even better, if a criminal thinks you're likely to shoot him if he tries something, maybe he won't think twice. A lot of that is in how you carry yourself, though.

Anyway, the outburst was pretty rude of him.

Noname215

06/08/2012, 06:46 pm

The kick is pretty manageable, though this may be because I'm in a wheelchair, so my arms are fairly strong. How's your technique? Do you lean into the shot to absorb the recoil? That's very important.

I just do it one-handed when I fire pistols. I feel weak when I use two. That’s just the way I am. But yes, I do lean into it to absorb the shot.

Just today I got a Ruger Bearcat single action revolver. I like the way it looked, and I haven’t fired it yet, but i’m very eager to.

Laserschwert

06/09/2012, 03:44 pm

Gun lovers are sick psychopaths. That's all I have to say about this.

Comrade Pants

06/09/2012, 04:11 pm

Gun lovers are sick psychopaths. That's all I have to say about this.

0/10, must troll harder.

St_Eddie

06/10/2012, 05:13 am

Comrade Pants the famous anti gun pacifist will have a few things to say about this!

What a piece of shit. Someone can tell that freaking hippie to go get high on pot and later p***y out when someone tries to rob him when he doesn’t have shit to defend himself with. He’ll be shitting himself in a corner while the house breakers steal all of his crap.

I'm would have read what you had to say but I was too busy getting high on pot and being a pussy.

Seriously though, I really should get a gun, then I could be just like you; a charming, tolerant and intelligent wordsmith. Ah sod it, I'll just smoke another joint and continue being a pussy.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and shit myself in a corner.

Johro

06/10/2012, 07:38 am

Just sleep beside a barbecue lighter and a can of hairspray and you'll be okay. Plus no one expects that shit. Better yet, get a broad sword a swing it around like a maniac. :P These crazy alarm system things are supposed to work alright too I guess.

Comrade Pants

06/10/2012, 09:58 am

I'm would have read what you had to say but I was too busy getting high on pot and being a pussy.

Seriously though, I really should get a gun, then I could be just like you; a charming, tolerant and intelligent wordsmith. Ah sod it, I'll just smoke another joint and continue being a pussy.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and shit myself in a corner.

I smoke pot AND shoot guns! Just, er, not at the same time. That's not overly wise, izzit?

Vainamoinen

06/10/2012, 10:05 am

I smoke pot AND shoot guns! Just, er, not at the same time. That's not overly wise, izzit?

Sad but unrelated coincidence: The people with the guns and those smoking pot are not normally overly wise anyway.

Comrade Pants

06/10/2012, 10:10 am

Sad but unrelated coincidence: The people with the guns and those smoking pot are not normally overly wise anyway.

I'm in Georgia. I know all about unwise gun owners. I was at an outdoor range once and a couple of bubbas brought a 24 back with their rifles. I put down my AK and turned to them with an "I seriously hope you guys aren't serious" look on my face. They cracked their Coors and went to work on some steel deer silhouettes down range. I finished my magazine and left.

Amazingly, the only time I've ever seen someone shoot high was with my stoner friends. They live in bumblefuck nowhere, yeah? So one of them tokes up and gets this antique shotgun out. Well, he fires at a stump a few paces off of the porch of the house and we all wander out on the porch. He's got this shit eating grin on him and we all sort of shake our heads. It's horrendously unsafe, but I'll be damned if he didn't blast that stump straight to hell.

That being said, High Pants' head spins too much for shooting while smoking green.

St_Eddie

06/10/2012, 10:14 am

Sad but unrelated coincidence: The people with the guns and those smoking pot are not normally overly wise anyway.

Your comment is a generalisation (obviously) but saying that people who smoke pot are not overly wise? Would you say the same about people who like to enjoy a glass of alcohol from time to time? If not, then that's a pretty hypocritical statement to make (assuming that you drink).

Addendum: Unless you were implying that those who get high and then shoot a gun are not overly wise, in which case I agree.

Comrade Pants

06/10/2012, 10:16 am

Your comment is a generalisation (obviously) but saying that people who smoke pot are not overly wise? Would you say the same about people who like to enjoy a glass of wine from time to time? If not, then that's a pretty hypocritical statement to make.

I think he means simultaneously. Then again, I think only the nuttiest right winger would call people like Hunter S Thompson "not overly wise." Generalizations.

St_Eddie

06/10/2012, 10:18 am

I think only the nuttiest right winger would call people like Hunter S Thompson "not overly wise." Generalizations.

Agreed.

I think he means simultaneously.

I've amended my original comment to reflect on the possibility that Vainamoinen was referring to those who do both things at once.

Comrade Pants

06/10/2012, 10:20 am

Agreed. I amended my original comment to reflect on the possibility that Vainamoinen was referring to those who do both things at once.

And thus, the balance was restored.
Note to self: find out how to turn deactivated guns into novelty bongs. Hell yeah.

Rather Dashing

06/10/2012, 10:25 am

http://i.imgur.com/9FLxF.jpg

pew pew

Comrade Pants

06/10/2012, 10:26 am

http://i.imgur.com/9FLxF.jpg

pew pew

Older than /k/.

Rather Dashing

06/10/2012, 10:30 am

Older than /k/.
But younger than YOUR MOTHER.

http://i.imgur.com/KIopa.jpg

pew pew pew

RetroVortex

06/10/2012, 10:46 am

When did this thread become a poop slinging thread.

Guns don't kill people, Monkeys do!

Well apes...

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/100908_GorillaAndTheDS1.grid-6x2.jpg

Look at them, with their brute strength and lack of morals, and poop slinging madness.

Good thing I was prepared for such an occasion! :D

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/04/30/gorilla-glasses.jpg

The bastards won't see me comi..errr... looking at them...

St_Eddie

06/10/2012, 11:04 am

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/04/30/gorilla-glasses.jpg

Hehe. I love those glasses. I don't think that it dissuades apes from attacking people because they view eye contact as a threat. I think that it dissuades apes from attacking people because it makes them look like fucking idiots! :D

Rather Dashing

06/10/2012, 11:06 am

I think that it dissuades apes from attacking people because it makes them look like fucking idiots! :D
Think about it for a second. You have a steaming turd in your hand, and your intention is to throw it at SOMEBODY. Why WOULDN'T you throw it at the guy who looks like a moron? Is your shit too GOOD for them? =P

St_Eddie

06/10/2012, 11:09 am

Think about it for a second. You have a steaming turd in your hand, and your intention is to throw it at SOMEBODY. Why WOULDN'T you throw it at the guy who looks like a moron? Is your shit too GOOD for them? =P

I think that you just answered your own question there, buddy.

RetroVortex

06/10/2012, 11:17 am

They pick their marks.

Someone looking away is just too damn easy!

Laserschwert

06/10/2012, 02:01 pm

0/10, must troll harder.
Nah, there's no trolling in stating my opinion.

And still I'm surprised a thread like this doesn't get shut down right away... Should we start a thread about prostitution? Or was that illegal in the US? I start losing sight of what's considered right or wrong...

Comrade Pants

06/10/2012, 02:27 pm

Nah, there's no trolling in stating my opinion.

And still I'm surprised a thread like this doesn't get shut down right away... Should we start a thread about prostitution? Or was that illegal in the US? I start losing sight of what's considered right or wrong...

Please. The law has no baring on what's right or wrong, that is entirely up to cultural morality. Personally, I have no problem with prostitution but whatever.

The way I see it, the only bad thing about guns is that they can be used by criminals or governments to kill innocents. However, when used for defense, or to kill truly horrible people - Bin Laden, for example - guns are a good thing. Therefore, there's nothing morally reprehensible about them.

Besides, people die anyway. Are you going to be against alcohol next? I mean, more people die of alcohol related problems than gun crime.

Anyway, here's some food for thought:
http://i.imgur.com/X23Mn.jpg

Anyway, back on subject...

Gun lovers are sick psychopaths. That's all I have to say about this.

Adorable. Since you honestly believe that, allow me to ask you this: what makes you think that? I mean, am I a sick psychopath? Off kilter, sure, but not the next Son of Sam as you seem to suggest. I mean, what's so hideously wrong with wanting to go hunting or defend yourself that you feel the need to call us - all of us ever, apparently - psychopaths?

Jennifer

06/10/2012, 02:31 pm

Comrade Pants

06/10/2012, 02:39 pm

Venison is delicious. My dad bagged a deer last year and that was some great eating for quite a while.

Laserschwert

06/10/2012, 03:05 pm

The difference is there are legitimate reasons for having guns, such as deer population control. Where I live, deer hunting is common (through shotgun and bow hunting, which have separate seasons). Being that my sister's boyfriend, and my friend's stepfather are hunters, I have to admit I've become a fan of venison. I don't do it myself, but I have absolutely no problem with people who hunt for food.Well, those are two different beasts altogether. Hunters are - just like policemen or soldiers - professionals working with weapons.

They're not using them for fun, as "gun enthusiasts" do - and that's where (to me) the psychopathic tendencies start. After all, guns (especially the kind of guns proudly shown in this thread) are built for killing... they aren't built for sports (you could use airguns for that) or for hunting.

stuff (I'll deal with it out of order... or above)
First of all, prostitution was just as an example for a thread that would get locked right away, which I'd find strange as I think of it as much less problematic than firearms.

As said, I have no problem with guns being used by professionals (hence the Bin Laden comparison lacks), but I think private individuals shouldn't have access to weapons. Yeah, "self defense" comes up everytime, but seriously, would you play the "hero" (if you want to call it that) when you're robbed by someone with a gun? Would you actually shoot him? That's not self defense, that's killing someone. Maybe my opinion about this is hugely formed by the country I live in (and vice versa, regarding your own views), but if you're living in an area so dangerous that you have to have a gun to feels safe, maybe moving would be the better choice than being ready to shoot people. And a terrorists example? Really? So all those gun hobbyist are going to protect the world from terrorists? Right, you never know when you might need a gun.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I always see the image of the "gun enthusiast" loving the feeling of "power" in his hands ("kicks like a mule", oh golly!), and yes, I'll definitely say there's something wrong with him or her. And yes, I'm against excessive use of alcohol as well. A lot of people getting drunk tend to get violent or at least lose some control (and sometimes just a little loss of control causes huge damage)... now imagine those people with guns. And what a weak statement: Of course more people die of alcohol related incidents that of guns, because - luckily - guns aren't as wide spread (and as taken for granted) as alcohol.

Just play an FPS and enjoy that.

JedExodus

06/10/2012, 03:26 pm

Just play an FPS and enjoy that.

That's sort of the point of gun enthusiasts I guess, they enjoy becoming proficient with their weapon, all great hobbies revolve around becoming very skilled at something, guns are no exceptions.

I wouldn't personally own a gun even if it were legal here because having one in the house is a disaster waiting to happen. However i'm sure the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible and keep theirs safely locked up, enjoy becoming adept at using their weapon in a safe environment and pray that they'll never have to use it on someone.

Anyway, I don't need a gun, i'll take on ALL contenders with my goddamned bare hands.

Comrade Pants

06/10/2012, 03:46 pm

As said, I have no problem with guns being used by professionals (hence the Bin Laden comparison lacks), but I think private individuals shouldn't have access to weapons. Yeah, "self defense" comes up everytime, but seriously, would you play the "hero" (if you want to call it that) when you're robbed by someone with a gun? Would you actually shoot him? That's not self defense, that's killing someone. Maybe my opinion about this is hugely formed by the country I live in (and vice versa, regarding your own views), but if you're living in an area so dangerous that you have to have a gun to feels safe, maybe moving would be the better choice than being ready to shoot people. And a terrorists example? Really? So all those gun hobbyist are going to protect the world from terrorists? Right, you never know when you might need a gun.

I train whenever I can, actually. I'd say that a lot of American shooters are more qualified than some police officers in terms of gun safety and many of us have prior military experience. As most enthusiasts will tell you, safety with your firearms is absolutely paramount.

Further, killing can be self defensive. I mean, I don't think I'd shed a tear if a woman shot a man trying to rape her or a man shot someone trying to murder him. I'm all for innocent people using lethal self defense to prevent their victimization and I've yet to see compelling reason for this to be a bad idea. If you don't want to get shot, don't rape/rob/assault innocent people. Simple.
And of course the firearms enthusiasts won't save the world, but it's a much better and safer place with us in it. Bare in mind that in the United States, they pass far more laws regarding protest and speech rights than they do gun rights. Why is that, you might ask? Because they're afraid of the gun owners. This is how you ward off tyranny.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I always see the image of the "gun enthusiast" loving the feeling of "power" in his hands ("kicks like a mule", oh golly!), and yes, I'll definitely say there's something wrong with him or her. And yes, I'm against excessive use of alcohol as well. A lot of people getting drunk tend to get violent or at least lose some control (and sometimes just a little loss of control causes huge damage)... now imagine those people with guns. And what a weak statement: Of course more people die of alcohol related incidents that of guns, because - luckily - guns aren't as wide spread (and as taken for granted) as alcohol.

I think you're quite wrong. It's no different from people who love the thrill of a fast car. It's the thrill of experiencing pure, unbridled force and power. Like a stormchaser, in a way. It's certainly not anything "wrong with him or her."
As for alcohol and guns going together, you're going to have a hard time finding a gun owner who drinks and shoots at the same time, and when you do find them, they're the sort of people who'd use a knife or something if they didn't have a gun. Really, I just think you might not know what you're talking about. Try shooting a gun if you ever get the chance. It's pretty fun and you might end up much less hoplophobic.

Just play an FPS and enjoy that.
I do, actually. They're pretty lacking compared to actual guns though. It's like spice and pot, or masturbation and sex.

St_Eddie

06/10/2012, 04:58 pm

It's like spice and pot, or masturbation and sex.

You've just summarised the story of my life...

Spice - I do love a good curry, preferably seven days a week. After-all, a curry a day keeps others away from the toilet, in shared accommodation. Resulting in you getting your own personal toilet. Result! the doctor away.

Pot - Yes. Not the container for holding a plant mind. Although there are a few plant pots in my garden - I can't say that I care for them much.

Masturbation - And lots of it!

Sex - Chance would be a fine thing. I can't even remember the last time that I got jiggy with it. Thinking about it; I probably don't get any sex because I use phrases such as "jiggy with it"! Yes, I'm sure that's the reason... well, that and my acorn sized excuse for a penis. I swear if I don't get laid soon, then my right hand is going to fall off! Yep, constantly and consistently.

Upon reflection, I guess that I really haven't done very much with my life. Maybe I should start setting myself some goals...

... Nah, sod it! When your daily routine consists of eating a curry, taking a toke on a smoke and some seriously rigorous masturbation sex with a beautiful woman... well, what else matters? I'm like a King amongst men; in my castle made of stench, drugs and crusty tissues.

Life is good.

Alcoremortis

06/10/2012, 05:11 pm

Anyway, I don't need a gun, i'll take on ALL contenders with my goddamned bare hands.

This is somewhat my philosophy. An attacker could potentially take away a weapon and use it on you, but if they try to take away your bare hands, they won't really end up with that much of an advantage.

Though having said that, I'm slightly more of a fan of feet, knees, and elbows.

RetroVortex

06/10/2012, 11:23 pm

I'd bite the motherfucker!

Comrade Pants

06/10/2012, 11:29 pm

I'd bite the motherfucker!

Get Jaws to do it.

RetroVortex

06/11/2012, 12:52 am

Get Jaws to do it.

Like this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHPvT8zVXT0)

Comrade Pants

06/11/2012, 01:12 am

Like this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHPvT8zVXT0)

Er, more like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xHPDIjWgMzw#t=6s)

Noname215

06/11/2012, 12:30 pm

Gun lovers are sick psychopaths. That's all I have to say about this.

Sorry about that tirade against you, Comrade Pants. You can now apply it to Laserschwert.

Comrade Pants

06/11/2012, 01:30 pm

Sorry about that tirade against you, Comrade Pants. You can now apply it to Laserschwert.

I don't think he's an idiot, just misinformed about the positive side of firearm ownership - possibly due to not being in a culture that accepts them as freely as ours. It's all cultural.

As a side note, can we all just agree that these guys are the best New Vegas faction?

http://i.imgur.com/z5cEj.png

Every gun nut on here - and probably in existence - would join up with the Boomers and we all know it.

Alcoremortis

06/11/2012, 02:55 pm

I don't think he's an idiot, just misinformed about the positive side of firearm ownership - possibly due to not being in a culture that accepts them as freely as ours. It's all cultural.

As a side note, can we all just agree that these guys are the best New Vegas faction?

http://i.imgur.com/z5cEj.png

Every gun nut on here - and probably in existence - would join up with the Boomers and we all know it.

What does it say about me that I chose the Brotherhood of Steel instead?

Or should I call them the Brotherhood of Steal?

Johro

06/11/2012, 02:57 pm

Someone mentioned pot and sex. Wha?

Comrade Pants

06/11/2012, 03:05 pm

What does it say about me that I chose the Brotherhood of Steel instead?

Or should I call them the Brotherhood of Steal?

That you're a lizard, Harry.

Alcoremortis

06/11/2012, 03:35 pm

That you're a lizard, Harry.

http://data.whicdn.com/images/9415027/punday-potter-lizard_large.jpg

Comrade Pants

06/11/2012, 03:39 pm

[broken image]

This is why we don't link to FunnyJunk. Also, because they're suing TheOatmeal. So fuck those guys.

Alcoremortis

06/11/2012, 08:42 pm

This is why we don't link to FunnyJunk. Also, because they're suing TheOatmeal. So fuck those guys.

It's what Google gave me to work with. I'll try changing it to something else.

Laserschwert

06/12/2012, 05:40 am

I don't think he's an idiot, just misinformed about the positive side of firearm ownership - possibly due to not being in a culture that accepts them as freely as ours. It's all cultural.I'll assume that's the case. BTW, I wouldn't question your intelligence either, far from that, but the concept of private possession of (lethal) weapons is something I find unethical and totally unnecessary.

If it's just about the fun of firing a weapon at targets, an airgun, paintball gun, or whatever would surely do.

Jennifer

06/12/2012, 08:50 am

I'll assume that's the case. BTW, I wouldn't question your intelligence either, far from that, but the concept of private possession of (lethal) weapons is something I find unethical and totally unnecessary.

If it's just about the fun of firing a weapon at targets, an airgun, paintball gun, or whatever would surely do.
I've used an air pistol and a real pistol, and I can say using an airgun or paintball gun is no substitution for a real gun.

I took a criminal justice class on pistol operation and safety in college as an elective. I'm by no means a gun affectionado, as I've never fired a gun since. But I'm glad that I did, as I enjoyed it. Like Comrade Pants said, I came out with a new understanding of people who enjoy using guns.

Comrade Pants

06/12/2012, 11:19 am

I've used an air pistol and a real pistol, and I can say using an airgun or paintball gun is no substitution for a real gun.

I took a criminal justice class on pistol operation and safety in college as an elective. I'm by no means a gun affectionado, as I've never fired a gun since. But I'm glad that I did, as I enjoyed it. Like Comrade Pants said, I came out with a new understanding of people who enjoy using guns.

This is it, pretty much. Nothing else can really compare to firing an actual firearm if that's the experience you're after, and it happens to be something a lot of us enjoy. There's nothing "psychopathic" about it.

Noname215

06/13/2012, 04:18 pm

Someone mentioned pot and sex. Wha?

Hippiesayswhat?

Comrade Pants

06/13/2012, 04:44 pm

Please. You can like pot, sex AND guns! Can't we all just get along?

Giant Tope

06/13/2012, 06:31 pm

Hippiesayswhat?
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m59y7y0kcL1qb0eft.bmp

Alcoremortis

06/13/2012, 07:55 pm

I don't know why people who don't feel the need or desire to own guns suddenly qualify as hippies.

I mean, I know my fencing coach didn't really like to keep a gun in his shop... but he could still shatter a cinder block at fifty paces with his tomahawk.

JedExodus

06/14/2012, 01:29 pm

Hippiesayswhat?

It's 2012. We have hipsters now.

Comrade Pants

06/14/2012, 04:31 pm

Your move, anti-gun people. (http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/v1dub/til_there_is_no_evidence_that_gun_control_lowers/)

Chyron8472

06/14/2012, 05:39 pm

I like how you link to a Reddit which links to Wikipedia, which says things like:

"Kleck has claimed in his own national survey [...] that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns. However, surveys that ask both about defensive gun use and criminal gun use find that more people report being victims of gun crimes than having used a gun in self defense. [...] In a largely approving review of Kleck's book [...] Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States."

"A University of Pennsylvania study, for example, found that people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to get shot than unarmed people."

"A study by Arthur Kellermann found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide."

"Gun control advocates claim that the strongest evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates comes in studies of domestic violence[.] [...] In response to public suggestions by some advocates of firearms for home defense, that homeowners were at high risk of injury from home invasions and would be wise to acquire a firearm for purposes of protection, Kellermann [...] found that the risk of a homicide was in fact slightly higher in homes where a handgun was present, rather than lower. From the details of the homicides he concluded that the risk of a crime of passion or other domestic dispute ending in a fatal injury was much higher when a gun was readily available[.]"

Also, poor gun safety by parents leads to children accidentally killing each other/themselves.

Alcoremortis

06/14/2012, 06:17 pm

Also, poor gun safety by parents leads to children accidentally killing each other/themselves.

Oh, I know all about this. My grandma almost killed her friend by accident when she was a kid. They were playing firing squad and she thought the gun was unloaded. But her dad always told her never to point a gun at anyone so she pointed slightly above her friend and shot a hole through the wall instead.

WarpSpeed

06/14/2012, 06:40 pm

They were playing firing squad and she thought the gun was unloaded. But her dad always told her never to point a gun at anyone so she pointed slightly above her friend and shot a hole through the wall instead.

Yep, first rule of gun safety: There's no such thing as an unloaded gun.

Comrade Pants

06/14/2012, 09:44 pm

Also, poor gun safety by parents leads to children accidentally killing each other/themselves.

So does shitty driving skills and just being an awful parent. Don't pin this on guns, Chyron.

Further...

"Kleck has claimed in his own national survey [...] that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns. However, surveys that ask both about defensive gun use and criminal gun use find that more people report being victims of gun crimes than having used a gun in self defense. [...] In a largely approving review of Kleck's book [...] Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States." Ah, yes. Gary Kleck. Here, check this out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck#Criticism)

"A University of Pennsylvania study, for example, found that people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to get shot than unarmed people."
Probably because most people, when it comes down to it, have reservations about using lethal force to defend themselves. I am completely without these reservations and kind of fail to comprehend them. Why wouldn't and shouldn't you be willing to kill someone who attacks you? Shoot first, goddammit. Fuck, even the Dalai Lama - whom I normally loathe to cite - says it's a good idea.

"A study by Arthur Kellermann found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide."

Has it ever occured to you that there may be other factors than just having the gun around? Perhaps the owner would have owned knives if guns weren't there.

Anyway, none of these things really provide much evidence for gun control being a good idea, especially since the page already says those laws don't work.

Oh, and I find it disturbing that gun control in the United States is rooted in racism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Gun_control_in_the_United_States) That's kind of a thing.

Yep, first rule of gun safety: There's no such thing as an unloaded gun.

This is absolutely true and I cannot emphasize this enough when letting others handle my guns.

Icedhope

06/14/2012, 10:46 pm

Guns are evil, evil things.

Comrade Pants

06/14/2012, 11:02 pm

Guns are evil, evil things.

http://myfacewhen.com/images/65.jpg

Alcoremortis

06/15/2012, 02:07 pm

Has it ever occured to you that there may be other factors than just having the gun around? Perhaps the owner would have owned knives if guns weren't there.

I'm afraid that the knife argument in the gun debate is a bit silly. Then someone always mentions that you never hear about a toddler getting killed in a drive-by knifing, and then the first person says that we would hear about it if there weren't any guns.

Let's just agree that this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARMoJ-9G68k) is hilarious.

Noname215

06/15/2012, 02:49 pm

JedExodus

06/15/2012, 02:51 pm

Kiss my ass, Icedhope. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Be quiet. Kurt served in the military he knows what he's talking about.

Alcoremortis

06/15/2012, 02:55 pm

Let’s just get this straight: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. They just use guns as an instrument. A gun itself is not an evil thing, it is the intentions of the user that can be evil (murder, robbery, etc.).

Actually, I think you'll find that bullets kill people.

Kiss my ass, Icedhope. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Also, you, sir, have lost what little of my respect there was left to lose.

Noname215

06/15/2012, 03:01 pm

Actually, I think you'll find that bullets kill people.

You misunderstand my meaning. It is all about intentions. A guy wants a gun to just have one around or to defend his house in the possibility of a robbery, that’s normal. But if a guy wants a gun so he can go blow a guy’s head off or to steal a sh*t load of money, that person is crazy. Guns themselves are just simple tools. It all depends on what the user wishes to do with it.

Vainamoinen

06/15/2012, 03:02 pm

Guns are evil, evil things.

JedExodus

06/15/2012, 03:03 pm

Guns are evil, evil things.

Noname215

06/15/2012, 03:06 pm

Guns are evil, evil things.

That’s not what you said earlier, if i’m not mistaken. You said you hated Comrade Pants for being a “peace-loving hippie.” I was proven mistaken, as were you. So don’t be a hypocrite.

Sure, you say you wouldn’t own a gun, but what makes you think it would be a “disaster waiting to happen?” That would only be so if you leave them in a place where children or idiots could get to them. My dad’s a cop, he knows this better then most.

I own guns because I believe they are protective (I live in a shitty neighborhood) and because I find them fun to use at ranges. Anyone who says guns are evil things doesn’t really know what they are talking about. Like I said, it depends what you use them for.

2nd Amendment, bitches.

Icedhope

06/15/2012, 03:14 pm

Noname215

06/15/2012, 03:17 pm

I sympathize for you, sir. My grandfather served in World War II, and he still has nightmares about Okinawa.

And he knows damn well what guns can do, too. [snip]

Intentions, intentions.

JedExodus

06/15/2012, 03:17 pm

That’s not what you said earlier, if i’m not mistaken. You said you hated Comrade Pants for being a “peace-loving hippie.” I was proven mistaken, as were you. So don’t be a hypocrite.

Yeah, that was a joke. As you were told akready by puzzlebox it's well known that Pants loves guns.

I also think you're very rude.

puzzlebox

06/15/2012, 03:24 pm

That’s not what you said earlier, if i’m not mistaken. You said you hated Comrade Pants for being a “peace-loving hippie.” I was proven mistaken, as were you. So don’t be a hypocrite.

In this thread alone you've berated 3 different people without understanding the full story. Remember that some folks in this community have been chatting here for years and that you may be missing some subtext.

Icedhope

06/15/2012, 03:25 pm

I sympathize for you, sir. My grandfather served in World War II, and he still has nightmares about Okinawa.

And he knows damn well what guns can do, too. [snip]

Intentions, intentions.

War never is. Your grandfather has my respects for fighting in WWII.

Alcoremortis

06/15/2012, 03:26 pm

You misunderstand my meaning. It is all about intentions. A guy wants a gun to just have one around or to defend his house in the possibility of a robbery, that’s normal. But if a guy wants a gun so he can go blow a guy’s head off or to steal a sh*t load of money, that person is crazy. Guns themselves are just simple tools. It all depends on what the user wishes to do with it.

No, you misunderstand my meaning. It's the physical bullet that causes the wound that can kill a person. The gun is merely the device that launches the projectile.

Catapults don't crush buildings. Giant rocks crush buildings. Also, Godzilla, but that's beside the point.

Actually, that's also a misunderstanding of my meaning. My real meaning is that we're getting so incredibly specific that it hardly seems like a worthy topic of conversation. Really, when we get down to it, the inability to synthesize proteins and ATP (which is a result of oxygen deprivation... which can happen when the avenues of oxygen transport are interrupted) kills people, but that doesn't look nearly as pretty on a billboard.

And my meaning under that is that the slogan is over-used and under-analyzed. In a debate, it is the rhetorical equivalent of quoting the Oscar Meyer song as an argument as to why bologna of one brand is better than any other.

And my meaning under that is that you insulted several of my friends in this thread because you viewed them as being anti-gun. Now, I'm not a gun slinger myself, and I don't particularly care to be one any time soon. And I especially don't want to be one if it means that I am associated with people like you as a result.

I also understand that by saying this, I have done the internet equivalent of wearing this shirt:

http://rlv.zcache.com/target_shirt_tshirt-p235054997428112004b24tr_400.jpg

Noname215

06/15/2012, 03:28 pm

Yeah, that was a joke. As you were told already by puzzlebox it's well known that Pants loves guns.

I also think you're very rude.

My tirade against him was also meant to be sarcastic. And I don’t read every post, so I didn’t even see puzzlebox’s post. And I didn’t even know that Icedhope was a military guy, so please don’t hold that against me.

And if I have seemed rude, then I apologize.

And I respect all war veterans, now including Icedhope.

Vainamoinen

06/15/2012, 03:35 pm

2nd Amendment, bitches.

That would be the right to bear single-shot guns with rudimentary rifling and a flintlock mechanism, loaded through the muzzle.

Could work.

Noname215

06/15/2012, 03:38 pm

That would be the right to bear single-shot guns with rudimentary rifling and a flintlock mechanism, loaded through the muzzle.

Could work.

No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b0-d7v_jbA

Vainamoinen

06/15/2012, 03:41 pm

You have to admit, drive by shootings would be a hell of a lot more difficult with these babies!

Icedhope

06/15/2012, 03:42 pm

You have to admit, drive by shootings would be a hell of a lot more difficult with these babies!

Actually real good rifleman..could fire off three shots a minute. But now I see what you did there.

JedExodus

06/15/2012, 03:45 pm

And I didn’t even know that Icedhope was a military guy, so please don’t hold that against me.

That's the point though, you can't just dish out abuse because there's always another side.

One of me earliest memory was of a man in a balaclava pointing an assault rifle right in my fathers face through the drivers window of his car. Everyone I know has a family tree with scores of members shot dead or blown to bits. Guns were used by those in authority and those who hated the authority to murder, maim and intimidate for decades. People were shot dead just for speaking their native language or demanding basic civil rights, so in return they shot back, and it was bad for a long time.

Needless to say guns have ruined peoples lives, I think you have to respect and understand that as you wish people to respect your wishes to have one. It's only natural that a lot of people oppose gun ownership, it's up to yourself to be a good ambassador for your cause I guess.

Anyhoo, lets let bygones be bygones :)

Noname215

06/15/2012, 03:46 pm

Fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr1INupPSf4

Comrade Pants

06/15/2012, 06:10 pm

You misinterpret my sarcasm. I'm against all weapons. I support people having and owning them and I support people doing what they want with them.

I've just seen what weapons can do and that sir is not a pretty thing. Have you ever seen what barret can do to somebody at fifty yards? Or What 40mm MGL can do? I have it's not pretty.

Fair enough. You've seen the horrors of war first hand. I imagine this does a lot in shaping your perspective of weapons.

That would be the right to bear single-shot guns with rudimentary rifling and a flintlock mechanism, loaded through the muzzle.

Could work.

Actually, it's just "arms", construed by the courts as an individual right to own firearms. What's the point of being able to own them if you can't own guns on par with criminals and police? Otherwise, there's really no point in owning them as you can't stand up to tyranny.

Seeing as how the founders of our country just got done facing off against the largest Empire in history, I can see how they'd want the people to own military calibre weapons in order to stave off tyranny again if the need arose. It's too bad that time and again, the United States government has proven adept at quashing internal rebellions.

That's the point though, you can't just dish out abuse because there's always another side.

This. I can't give this statement enough air, so the best I can do is quote it and repost it.

One of me earliest memory was of a man in a balaclava pointing an assault rifle right in my fathers face through the drivers window of his car. Everyone I know has a family tree with scores of members shot dead or blown to bits. Guns were used by those in authority and those who hated the authority to murder, maim and intimidate for decades. People were shot dead just for speaking their native language or demanding basic civil rights, so in return they shot back, and it was bad for a long time.

Needless to say guns have ruined peoples lives, I think you have to respect and understand that as you wish people to respect your wishes to have one. It's only natural that a lot of people oppose gun ownership, it's up to yourself to be a good ambassador for your cause I guess.

Anyhoo, lets let bygones be bygones :)

This is why I'm all for civilians owning guns. Terrorists/rebels/non-governmental actors have nothing to stop them from maiming populations and governments tend to get carried away when fighting uprisings. The population must arm themselves or else they risk being thrown to the mercies of their armed brethren.

That being said, you have my utmost sympathies. No one should ever have to see that, especially so young. For what it's worth, IRL I always do my utmost to be a model gun owner.

Noname215

06/15/2012, 06:33 pm

Who here supports the NRA? If not, do NOT respond to this question.

coolsome

06/15/2012, 06:34 pm

If not, do NOT respond to this question.

Ok.

Comrade Pants

06/15/2012, 06:39 pm

Who here supports the NRA? If not, do NOT respond to this question.

Actually, there's a lot of conjecture that the NRA keeps a lot of stuff illegal in order to maintain a reason for their existence. Think about it: as much influence and money as they have, they could easily overturn the '86 automatic weapons manufacture ban and the ban on Russian and Chinese firearm imports. Easily. Fuck the NRA, they don't give a shit about our gun rights. They only care about getting rich.

Giant Tope

06/15/2012, 06:47 pm

Who here supports the NRA? If not, do NOT respond to this question.

nop

Noname215

06/15/2012, 06:47 pm

Fuck the NRA, they don't give a shit about our gun rights. They only care about getting rich.

I’m a member of the NRA.

Comrade Pants

06/15/2012, 06:55 pm

I’m a member of the NRA.

Must feel bad, getting ripped off like that. Especially since they sell your address to about a million spam companies. I made that mistake when I first got into guns. Once you research the realities of the spot guns occupy in American politics, you see how ridiculous they are in their methods and their status.

If they were as necessary as they say they are, all the redneck gun owners would be rebelling. Believe me, the very INSTANT a serious threat to our gun rights materializes, you'll see all the backwoods of America rise up. Trust me on this.

The NRA instead uses fear tactics to dream up threats to our rights and scare impressionable people into joining while using the congressmen they've bought to keep insidious legislation like 922(r) in force so that they have a reason to exist, a lot like how anti-abortion lobbyists will never really overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety. What use is a lobby if its reason for existing dies out?

No, your NRA dues are just keeping Colt and Remington from producing civilian legal automatics again and keeping $200 Norinco 1911s and $50 Mosins from American shores.

Secret Fawful

06/15/2012, 07:52 pm

Comrade Pants

06/15/2012, 09:05 pm

I just saw my cousin post this on Facebook-

"Thanks to the coward ass bitches my 7 year old got to witness his first shooting Fucking bull shit that society is this way next time use your fucking fist like real men"

That's really incredibly awful, but I don't think guns are solely to blame. If you want someone dead enough it's going to happen with or without guns.

Also, hope you don't mind, but I really don't want this to be at the bottom of the last page.

Must feel bad, getting ripped off like that. Especially since they sell your address to about a million spam companies. I made that mistake when I first got into guns. Once you research the realities of the spot guns occupy in American politics, you see how ridiculous they are in their methods and their status.

If they were as necessary as they say they are, all the redneck gun owners would be rebelling. Believe me, the very INSTANT a serious threat to our gun rights materializes, you'll see all the backwoods of America rise up. Trust me on this.

The NRA instead uses fear tactics to dream up threats to our rights and scare impressionable people into joining while using the congressmen they've bought to keep insidious legislation like 922(r) in force so that they have a reason to exist, a lot like how anti-abortion lobbyists will never really overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety. What use is a lobby if its reason for existing dies out?

No, your NRA dues are just keeping Colt and Remington from producing civilian legal automatics again and keeping $200 Norinco 1911s and $50 Mosins from American shores.

Noname215

06/16/2012, 07:39 am

Like I said. It’s not the gun itself, it’s what stupid-ass people do with them.

coolsome

06/16/2012, 08:24 am

http://i.saucesome.net/ChI.png

WarpSpeed

06/16/2012, 08:24 am

The NRA instead uses fear tactics to dream up threats to our rights and scare impressionable people into joining

Oh, is that why there was that big scare a year or so ago that everyone needed to buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they could before Obama got his way, despite Obama not having given any signs that he was going to do anything? I was wondering about that.

Comrade Pants

06/16/2012, 11:18 am

Oh, is that why there was that big scare a year or so ago that everyone needed to buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they could before Obama got his way, despite Obama not having given any signs that he was going to do anything? I was wondering about that.

Yup. Also, I love how Noname didn't see fit to reply to my appraisal of the NRA.

Noname215

06/17/2012, 12:58 pm

Yup. Also, I love how Noname didn't see fit to reply to my appraisal of the NRA.

I was away in San Jose for a gun show. Didn’t bring my laptop.

coolsome

06/17/2012, 01:01 pm

I was away in San Jose for a gun show. Didn’t bring my laptop.

Is that anything like a dog show?

Noname215

06/17/2012, 01:07 pm

Is that anything like a dog show?

Is that where your dad met your mother?

Just kidding.

Giant Tope

06/17/2012, 02:29 pm

Is that where your dad met your mother?

Just kidding.

http://i.imgur.com/byAHM.jpg

coolsome

06/17/2012, 02:41 pm

Is that where your dad met your mother?

Just kidding.

http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv27/DoctorJoker/gohan.png

Noname215

06/18/2012, 01:54 pm

Now back to the gun confabulation!

Comrade Pants

06/25/2012, 06:10 am

I just got back from California.

Great state, but they've got the shittiest gun laws in the Union.

Alcoremortis

06/25/2012, 07:10 am

I just got back from California.

Great state, but they've got the shittiest gun laws in the Union.

And yet, I've probably been to the range more often than a lot of people here. Kinda weird to think of that, isn't it?

Comrade Pants

06/25/2012, 01:22 pm

And yet, I've probably been to the range more often than a lot of people here. Kinda weird to think of that, isn't it?

That it is. Well... You had to reload every five shots. Ha! Also, as a matter of legal procedure, they make self defense with firearms fairly difficult, what with no legal carry options whatsoever.

Alcoremortis

06/25/2012, 01:38 pm

That it is. Well... You had to reload every five shots. Ha! Also, as a matter of legal procedure, they make self defense with firearms fairly difficult, what with no legal carry options whatsoever.

When I've been at the range, I've generally had a magazine of about twenty shots or so. I don't know the handgun I was shooting, though, because it belonged to a family friend. I think it was close to the same for rifles. Shotguns you could only have two shots at a time, but since you're pausing every round to release a new clay pigeon, it really doesn't matter that much.

As for self defense, this is where we substitute firearms with good old fashioned common sense. We don't do things like, say going to an ATM in L.A. after dark. That's just begging to get mugged. You don't park your car in a dark area, or sit in it for too long once you get to it. If you notice someone weird around your car, you casually decide to go to a brightly lit area and call a friend or something. Don't go down streets you don't know and don't travel in the dark while you're, say on your fancy smart phone.

You know, standard self-defense things.

Comrade Pants

06/25/2012, 01:58 pm

Alcoremortis

06/25/2012, 02:17 pm

You shouldn't have to be afraid like that, though. Potential criminals should be afraid of you. This is why carry laws exist: deterrence and, of course, active defense. When it all comes down to it, a .45 ACP will respond much faster than law enforcement, and I won't be out any money when I recover my wallet.

The thing about guns is that they become a lot less useful at close range. And if someone's going to mug you, it seems logical to me that they wouldn't make a move until they were in close range because they don't want you to get away. My self-defense instructors always told us that the most likely type of attack we would potentially face is being grabbed by someone and the thing with being grabbed is it greatly reduces your ability to maneuver and, say, pull out a handgun. Even if you did get it, the grabber would be in a good position to take it away by this time.

A gun is far more useful in offense, I feel, or if you know that someone a good distance away means you harm. It would probably also be useful if someone was in your house and you hear them before they know you're there. But not on the street.

Noname215

06/25/2012, 03:52 pm

Colorado has the best gun laws. I have a place up there where I can keep my full-autos.

Chyron8472

06/26/2012, 12:01 am

As for self defense, this is where we substitute firearms with good old fashioned common sense.

You shouldn't have to be afraid like that, though.

I agree with both of these.

I'm not sure where I fall when it comes to carrying a handgun. Sure, you can defend yourself, but there seems to me a lot of ability to abuse having said gun. I mean, look at George Zimmerman for one thing.

Regarding "common sense," it occurs to me that what women consider common sense regarding safety is different than for men. I might not hang around in a dark alley or something, but it's no big deal for me to go to the store in the middle of the night by myself to buy something. However, my wife would never think of doing so because she would feel unsafe.

Jennifer

06/26/2012, 03:50 am

That it is. Well... You had to reload every five shots. Ha! Also, as a matter of legal procedure, they make self defense with firearms fairly difficult, what with no legal carry options whatsoever.
You are able to get a carry a concealed weapon license (CCW) in California, which is issued by the sheriff or police chief, at their discretion, for the area of California in which you live.

It is true though that non-Californians can't carry concealed weapons, since out-of-state concealed weapons licenses are not recognized in California.

Noname215

06/27/2012, 02:57 pm

Just bought a Webley two days ago. Nice piece, and it fires pretty steadily.

Comrade Pants

06/27/2012, 07:22 pm

Just bought a Webley two days ago. Nice piece, and it fires pretty steadily.

Request for pics

Noname215

06/28/2012, 11:00 am

I don’t post pictures of myself online. But I will show what it looks like.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A2KJkCDKqexPky8AeTKJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMT Q4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimage s.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dwebley% 2Brevolver%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-701-s%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D2&w=3699&h=2472&imgurl=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons% 2Fc%2Fc9%2FWebley_revolver_IMG_1524.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FF ile%3AWebley_revolver_IMG_1524.jpg&size=422.6+KB&name=File%3AWebley+revolver+IMG+1524.jpg+-+Wikimedia+Commons&p=webley+revolver&oid=575f5e2b88fba1c514033e92ef821923&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-701-s&tt=File%253AWebley%2Brevolver%2BIMG%2B1524.jpg%2B-%2BWikimedia%2BCommons&b=0&ni=112&no=2&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=123qb1kf0&sigb=137ml1vcb&sigi=128gdp817&.crumb=XBjrGht0U.r

Comrade Pants

06/28/2012, 11:47 am

Well, I meant of your gun. I posted pics of mine. I want to see the condition and everything. I mean, it's not like Webleys are easy to find at all.

Vainamoinen

06/28/2012, 12:31 pm

Wait, you're still discussing guns? So there are more than two out there?

/troll

Noname215

06/28/2012, 03:52 pm

Well, I meant of your gun. I posted pics of mine. I want to see the condition and everything. I mean, it's not like Webleys are easy to find at all.

I understand, but I never post anything personal to me on the internet. And to answer your question as to how I came by it, I sought out a former member of the Irish Republican Army who had one for sale. Got it from him for two hundred, and it is still in perfect working condition.

Get outta here, Vainamoinen!

coolsome

06/28/2012, 10:03 pm

I have perfect gun safety me.

http://b.asset.soup.io/asset/2609/0811_a6bd.gif

JedExodus

06/29/2012, 10:28 am

I sought out a former member of the Irish Republican Army who had one for sale. Got it from him for two hundred, and it is still in perfect working condition.

It's like the whole post was tailored to upset me!

Comrade Pants

07/02/2012, 02:37 am

It's like the whole post was tailored to upset me!

Knowing this forum, I'd not put it in the realm of the impossible.

Noname215

07/03/2012, 11:13 am

Knowing this forum, I'd not put it in the realm of the impossible.

The guys at the shooting range I went to kept asking me shit about it. A teenager even asked if he could use it, just because it looks cool!

Comrade Pants

07/03/2012, 06:48 pm

The guys at the shooting range I went to kept asking me shit about it. A teenager even asked if he could use it, just because it looks cool!

We're thinking about the same model Webley, right? A Webley is many things. Cool looking, it is not. A nice historic piece, though. Vintage Britannia.

Haggis

07/05/2012, 03:27 am

Wait, you're still discussing guns? So there are more than two out there?

/troll
Actually, I'm going to take this seriously and express my amazement. I just find it utterly unfathomable how or why guns are apparently so embedded in American culture. How did that happen? Is it the Wild West or what? I just don't see the appeal of owning a gun at all.

And as for defending oneself against criminals... isn't that what the police is for?

coolsome

07/05/2012, 04:07 am

And as for defending oneself against criminals... isn't that what the police is for?

The police aren't there 24/7 though.

Jennifer

07/05/2012, 04:17 am

Actually, I'm going to take this seriously and express my amazement. I just find it utterly unfathomable how or why guns are apparently so embedded in American culture. How did that happen? Is it the Wild West or what? I just don't see the appeal of owning a gun at all.
It's due to the second amendment of the US Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights), that grants "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It was actually put in place due to the 1689 English Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) (which was one of the inspirations for the US Bill of Rights), where the Parliament of England determined that the freedom of people to keep arms was a natural right.

Like everything else in the United States, different states have differering opinions on how far that right extends. Every state has laws allowing hunting with rifles. It's harder to get a license in some states than others, even for this (some have extensive background checks and lengthy waiting periods, others do not). But when it comes to handguns, the laws are even more varied. Some states allow concealed weapons permits for protection purposes, some are dependent on individual counties or cities making their own decisions on approval for these (California for example), and places that don't allow concealed handguns require them to be locked up when transporting (for use for shooting ranges, and the like).

It's also been up for debate for years about whether the first and second part of that amendment are connected. The first part says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", and is separated by a comma before the second part above. In a Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), the US Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia".

And as for defending oneself against criminals... isn't that what the police is for?
They can't be expected to be there at the very moment when you are being violently assaulted. I won't debate the use of firearms to protect yourself, as it's been debated before in this thread, but there are definitely times when people have to protect themselves personally before police arrive (or even before police can even be called).

Haggis

07/05/2012, 04:32 am

The police aren't there 24/7 though.
Criminals aren't there 24/7 either. How many people who carry a gun actually encounter a situation where they have to use it in their lifetime to save themselves or other civilians? How many people who carry a gun actually use it to harm people?

And about the Constitution, it seems to me to be terribly anachronistic to still take that as a point of reference. That's the problem with patriotism, there's too much worshipping of old values, and too little of looking at what really works.

there are definitely times when people have to protect themselves personally before police arrive (or even before police can even be called).
I wonder how many situations like that truly come up though. The most obvious situation I can think of is an armed robbery. In that case, it could make sense to offer training to shopkeepers to defend themselves.

There are probably other situations in which civilians would like to defend themselves, but that still doesn't explain this particular fascination with guns. There's a lot more to it than just wanting to defend oneself. For some, perhaps even most, gun owners that might be an important reason for wanting to own firearms, but I'm sure there are other people who think it's just "cool". Those are the ones I don't understand.

Jennifer

07/05/2012, 04:45 am

I wonder how many situations like that truly come up though. The most obvious situation I can think of is an armed robbery. In that case, it could make sense to offer training to shopkeepers to defend themselves.
There's also the case of violence due to bigotry (for example, in the present climate in the United States, being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual, sadly, does sometimes lead to violence). In my hometown, a group of people beat a gay man who came out of a bar because he was carrying a purse, and the owner of the only gay bar in the town where I grew up was shot in his own home a few years ago. Also, a transsexual woman was beaten so badly she went into convulsions (http://www.bilerico.com/2011/04/transwoman_severely_beaten_at_baltimore_mcdonalds. php) in Baltimore, Maryland last year while onlookers just watched the beating and laughed.

Cases like that would definitely warrant some form of self-protection.

There are probably other situations in which civilians would like to defend themselves, but that still doesn't explain this particular fascination with guns. There's a lot more to it than just wanting to defend oneself. For some, perhaps even most, gun owners that might be an important reason for wanting to own firearms, but I'm sure there are other people who think it's just "cool". Those are the ones I don't understand.
I don't understand those people either. I haven't met any people like that though. All of the people I met either want a gun for protection (my parent's friend from California who used to be in law enforcement), for hunting (my father when he was younger), or both (my sister's boyfriend). There are also people who want guns for target range shooting (some people in the handgun class I took (it was a college criminal justice class, so most people who took it wanted to get into law enforcement)).

Haggis

07/05/2012, 05:09 am

Cases like that would definitely warrant some form of self-protection.
To do what? Shoot the assaulter? Okay. Shoot him in the leg? Sure, why not. In the head though, would that be warranted? And what to do with the people standing around watching, if they don't go away, should they be shot as well? There's a justice system for a reason, it's to prevent situations where people take the law into their own hands.

for hunting
Ah, that's another thing... I probably shouldn't go into that whole discussion though, I'd probably be labelled a vegetarian (which I am) hippie (which I'm not).

most people who took it wanted to get into law enforcement
I understand that shooting must be a part of the curriculum if you're studying to be in law enforcement. But what about the other people who were there? Why did they feel the need to do target practice if they weren't going to use it to serve the public? Were they studying to be cowboys or what? Why not take up archery instead? Seems to me like that's at least as much fun, and a lot less dangerous (taking a bow and arrow onto the streets to shoot people sounds like it's a lot harder than doing the same with firearms).

Jennifer

07/05/2012, 05:40 am

To do what? Shoot the assaulter? Okay. Shoot him in the leg? Sure, why not. In the head though, would that be warranted?
In the case of the man who murdered the man in his home, it could have saved the murdered man's life, so yes, a fatal shot would have been warranted there. In the case of the beating in Baltimore, I do think if she had fatally wounded her assaulter, it would have been warranted. She didn't die, but she was assaulted so badly that she's lucky to be alive, and she definitely could have died from the injuries she sustained.

And what to do with the people standing around watching, if they don't go away, should they be shot as well?
Of course not.

There's a justice system for a reason, it's to prevent situations where people take the law into their own hands.
Protecting yourself isn't taking the law into your own hands. That saying means that you are working from outside of the law to justify your actions. It's not unlawful to use force to protect yourself from harm.

I understand that shooting must be a part of the curriculum if you're studying to be in law enforcement. But what about the other people who were there? Why did they feel the need to do target practice if they weren't going to use it to serve the public? Were they studying to be cowboys or what? Why not take up archery instead? Seems to me like that's at least as much fun, and a lot less dangerous.
I wasn't in criminal justice classes in college, I just took the handgun class as an elective. I took the class for two reasons: I was curious about the procedures police take in regards to how and when to fire a weapon, and also because I was curious about what it was like to fire a handgun.

As far as crossbows vs. guns, we had mandatory archery in high school, and I didn't like it very much. I did enjoy shooting at the firing range when I took the handgun class in college though. It's a completely different feeling, and as I said before I did come to realize how some people enjoyed sport shooting after I took the class. Like Comrade Pants said before, if you try it yourself you might come out with a better understanding of people who enjoy it.

taking a bow and arrow onto the streets to shoot people sounds like it's a lot harder than doing the same with firearms
Only a tiny fraction of people who own guns ever use them for criminal activities. You'll find that most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens. I certainly don't find my father, my parent's friend, or my sister's boyfriend as outlaw-types because they've owned guns (or me, for that matter, for having fired a gun before).

Chyron8472

07/05/2012, 07:23 am

What do you all think about open-carry gun laws?

Having rolled it over in my mind, I don't think seeing a random law-abiding citizen with a holstered handgun would particularly bother me (albeit, given that said citizen doesn't look creepy, suspicious or associated with such as a gang).

I think it would bother me if I went to a location/event/place of business (that was not itself gun-related) where the majority of citizens were to be seen carrying a gun. I admit, however, that such an occurrence may either be more in the realm of the hypothetical or else would probably be a seedy place that I wouldn't visit in the first place.

Alcoremortis

07/05/2012, 07:34 am

I understand that shooting must be a part of the curriculum if you're studying to be in law enforcement. But what about the other people who were there? Why did they feel the need to do target practice if they weren't going to use it to serve the public? Were they studying to be cowboys or what? Why not take up archery instead? Seems to me like that's at least as much fun, and a lot less dangerous (taking a bow and arrow onto the streets to shoot people sounds like it's a lot harder than doing the same with firearms).

I don't actually own guns as I haven't found them to be necessary for protection or anything, but I have gone out to the range a few times with a friend of my parents to practice shooting. I view it more as a skill, one that you hope never to use, but an important one to have just in case. I mean, I also sail even though I'm not planning on being a sailor, and play several musical instruments even though I don't plan to be a musician. I think it's important to know how a gun works and be able to use one, but not so important to actually own one.

I think I mentioned already that I think a martial arts based self defense is more practical in most cases. I highly doubt that the transsexual woman who was beaten would have been able to shoot her attacker after they were clear in their intentions. I mean, by that point, they were probably too close and had started a grapple or grab and the gun would have been useless. And of course, a weapon that you don't know how to use just becomes one for your opponent, so there's that to consider as well.

Also @Chyron: I think open-carry is stupid. If the point of carrying a gun is protection, it only works if the attacker doesn't know you have it. Otherwise it's just an advertisement that you own a small valuable object and carry it on your person, right there to be taken away.

Haggis

07/05/2012, 08:05 am

Yes, I think martial arts would probably be more useful in a case like that. Also, I don't mean to imply that people who own guns are all hill-billies or outlaws. I guess the whole thing is just a clash of cultures. Guns are obviously part and parcel of American culture, whereas in Europe we do things a little differently... we just start a humongous war and drag the rest of the world along with us (although lately we've been a bit better in that respect).

Comrade Pants

07/05/2012, 08:49 pm

Actually, I'm going to take this seriously and express my amazement. I just find it utterly unfathomable how or why guns are apparently so embedded in American culture. How did that happen? Is it the Wild West or what? I just don't see the appeal of owning a gun at all.

And as for defending oneself against criminals... isn't that what the police is for?

My pistol has a faster response time then the sheriff's department halfway across town. What's the response time like where you live?

Anyway, guns tend to be very important in your country when it was born of a violent revolution. The ability to destroy tyranny is what led to legal guarantees for American gun ownership in the first place.

What do you all think about open-carry gun laws?

Having rolled it over in my mind, I don't think seeing a random law-abiding citizen with a holstered handgun would particularly bother me (albeit, given that said citizen doesn't look creepy, suspicious or associated with such as a gang).

I think it would bother me if I went to a location/event/place of business (that was not itself gun-related) where the majority of citizens were to be seen carrying a gun. I admit, however, that such an occurrence may either be more in the realm of the hypothetical or else would probably be a seedy place that I wouldn't visit in the first place.

I'm against them on the principal of keeping the fear that there might be gun owners about as a genuine deterrent.

ALLEGORY: There's a thicket in an environment infested with poisonous snakes. Do you walk through the thicket to your destination or around it, where you can clearly see the ground?

Now imagine that you're a criminal. Do you rob a store near a shooting range, knowing that the people nearby might be CCing on their way back from shooting or do you go rob the store that proudly announces itself to be a "gun-free" zone?

Add to that the fact that, as you said, a lot of innocent people get nervous around guns and you can see why CCing makes the most sense.

By the Nine, I can't believe I agreed with you.

Yes, I think martial arts would probably be more useful in a case like that. Also, I don't mean to imply that people who own guns are all hill-billies or outlaws. I guess the whole thing is just a clash of cultures. Guns are obviously part and parcel of American culture, whereas in Europe we do things a little differently... we just start a humongous war and drag the rest of the world along with us (although lately we've been a bit better in that respect).

Oh, how I do not look forward to seeing how the EU collapses. You can't just eject Greece, they're never going to repay their loans, and they're dragging down Germany, France, and Great Britain.

Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this. Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.

Haggis

07/06/2012, 01:58 am

My pistol has a faster response time then the sheriff's department halfway across town. What's the response time like where you live?
It depends. I think there's a legal limit of, what, 15 minutes or something? Of course a bullet will always be faster, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where people are allowed to execute others without trial.

Anyway, guns tend to be very important in your country when it was born of a violent revolution.
Why? That revolution happened centuries ago. Are you saying time stood still in the US? No progress at all? That's rather sad, actually.

The ability to destroy tyranny is what led to legal guarantees for American gun ownership in the first place.
Okay, so the reason you're allowed to carry guns is so you can kill the President if you don't like them... but ironically, that has nothing to do with shooting criminals.

Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this.
As is pepper spray, for instance (at least with the majority of the population that isn't immune to it). Also, a well-placed punch or kick can incapacitate anyone. And hey, if it's just about incapacitating an attacker, why not use rubber bullets?

Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.
I completely agree with you there. My issue with guns is not that criminals can be harmed, but that it's so easy for innocent people to get hurt, especially when guns aren't kept securely. And yes, that does happen. Not everyone who owns a gun handles it responsibly, so no, I don't trust other people with guns just like that. If they must own a gun, they'd better follow an extensive course on things like gun safety, but also psychology, like, how to read people (how can you be sure an attacker is an attacker before he makes his first move? and by then it might be too late to react). Nobody should ever be able to just walk into a shop and buy a gun, and personally, I think only trained professionals should be able to use one.

Jennifer

07/06/2012, 07:51 am

It depends. I think there's a legal limit of, what, 15 minutes or something? Of course a bullet will always be faster, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a country where people are allowed to execute others without trial.
Most states do require a trial if someone kills someone in self defense. The only state I'm aware of that doesn't is Florida (other states have stand your ground laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law), but Florida is the only state that stipulates "immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force". This is likely to change after the Trayvon Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin) case, though, since it put worldwide negative attention on that law).

Alcoremortis

07/06/2012, 08:30 am

Also, it's kind of adorable that you think martial arts would be an effective in that situation. Attackers are best dealt with by ensuring they don't get up to attack you again. Guns are kind of great at this. Before you say anything about it, I really don't see why the life of an attacker should be my concern. As far as I'm concerned, they brought it on themselves by attacking an innocent person.

I think that the idea that guns would help in a self-defense situation is adorable. If someone's going to attack you, they probably aren't going to project their intentions from a distance great enough to get your gun out. If someone grabs you by your shooting arm, it's going to be difficult to get a bead on them. That's what I'm saying

Also, martial arts doesn't mean "nonlethal". There is quite a bit is designed to not instantly kill the opponent (which gives you flexibility to respond to someone trying to steal your purse vs. someone trying to steal your head), but I know people who can crush a man's sternum with a well-placed kick. Or break someone's nose with so much force that the bone fragments penetrate the brain. And a lot of martial arts defenses are designed to make a fight end as quickly as possible with the other person completely incapacitated as well as being able to get out of situations that would otherwise cause your own incapacitation.

Haggis

07/06/2012, 08:59 am

break someone's nose with so much force that the bone fragments penetrate the brain
/thread

Comrade Pants

07/06/2012, 09:57 am

Haggis

07/06/2012, 10:55 am

Yeah, sorry, I probably shouldn't have picked this thread for this debate anyway. I'll hand it back to the actual gun enthusiasts now, but not without first leaving you all with something both funny and relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBNd24-0VRQ

Alcoremortis

07/06/2012, 10:57 am

Not really "/thread", considering we were talking about firearm enthusiasm and not the practicality of it. Besides, having the skill to send bone fragments into the brain is a lot less doable for most people - including me, a paraplegic - than defending yourself with a gun is.

No, you could probably just crush their hand into powder or something as you dragged them into face-smashing range.

And while not everyone can do the bone fragment thing, they can instead rely on the fact that an attacker is likely to be male and do the old slap, grab, twist, and pull. If they're not down by the end of that, it's unlikely a bullet would stop them anyways.

Noname215

07/06/2012, 01:02 pm

We're thinking about the same model Webley, right? A Webley is many things. Cool looking, it is not. A nice historic piece, though. Vintage Britannia.

Not what I meant. The kid said: “Hey dude, cool looking revolver. Mind if I try it out?” I myself never said it was cool looking, I just got it for the hell of it.

Comrade Pants

07/19/2012, 04:27 pm

Th-th-thread necromancy up in this!

http://i.imgur.com/8eTz0.jpg

Haggis

07/20/2012, 01:25 am

At what point does a man become sufficiently evil that you're allowed to point a gun at him? And how good does a man need to be to earn the right to carry a rifle?

KingOfZilla

08/20/2012, 05:28 pm

Just letting the people who visit this forum know that it is unlocked.

Johro

08/20/2012, 05:30 pm

Just like Pants' safety.

Noname215

08/20/2012, 06:26 pm

I went up to Colorado the other week and a buddy of mine let me fire his AA12. Awesome gun.

Comrade Pants

08/21/2012, 05:48 am

At what point does a man become sufficiently evil that you're allowed to point a gun at him? And how good does a man need to be to earn the right to carry a rifle?

When he's physically threatening you or another innocent person OR when he's trespassing in your home. How good does a man need to be to carry a weapon? Good enough to hit his targets, sane enough to know what his targets should be, and sure enough not to hesitate - lest the aggressor overcome him.

Just letting the people who visit this forum know that it is unlocked.

About time.

Just like Pants' safety.

Not until I'm sighted on a target. :P

I went up to Colorado the other week and a buddy of mine let me fire his AA12. Awesome gun.

Awesome! That's gun is like the Desert Eagle though, in that while it's awesome I really don't see the utility or practicality. I mean, in what combat situation would either be relevant? The AA12 seems like a fragile, yet overpowered cudgel whilst the Desert Eagle would be much better as a carbine with its cartridge and bulk.

Neither gun really makes sense.

Haggis

08/21/2012, 08:45 am

When he's physically threatening you or another innocent person OR when he's trespassing in your home. How good does a man need to be to carry a weapon? Good enough to hit his targets, sane enough to know what his targets should be, and sure enough not to hesitate - lest the aggressor overcome him.
Okay, that actually sounds reasonable. The one problem is sanity, which is quite hard to test. Even with very strict rules, some loonies slip through the cracks. The question is, is that a risk we all should take?

I'm inclined to say no, but the solution is not to give any civilian guns, and that's something that probably will never happen.

Noname215

08/22/2012, 07:27 pm

Awesome! That's gun is like the Desert Eagle though, in that while it's awesome I really don't see the utility or practicality. I mean, in what combat situation would either be relevant? The AA12 seems like a fragile, yet overpowered cudgel whilst the Desert Eagle would be much better as a carbine with its cartridge and bulk.

Neither gun really makes sense.

In a combat situation, I would prefer to use the AA12. Enemies can be very afraid of loud noises, especially shotguns. Also, with 360 blistering rounds a minute, I would be like freakin’ Rambo.

Comrade Pants

08/23/2012, 11:30 am

Okay, that actually sounds reasonable. The one problem is sanity, which is quite hard to test. Even with very strict rules, some loonies slip through the cracks. The question is, is that a risk we all should take?

I'm inclined to say no, but the solution is not to give any civilian guns, and that's something that probably will never happen.

I would take this risk. The alternative is to allow the police a monopoly on armed firepower and we've all seen how well this can work out. Just ask any group that's been subject to oppression by the powers that be if they'd like to allow the government to be the only armed people.

At the end of the day, that's what the second amendment is all about. Politicians and Internet debaters can go on and on all they like about hunting and self defense, but really, the reason we can own guns in the United States is to make sure that the government can never become more powerful than the people. It's unfortunate that people forget this, as it's a very noble sentiment.

In a combat situation, I would prefer to use the AA12. Enemies can be very afraid of loud noises, especially shotguns. Also, with 360 blistering rounds a minute, I would be like freakin’ Rambo.

True, but there are so many better and more durable shotguns. Hell, a decent pump action will be an order of magnitude more reliable and just as effective at its task.

Haggis

08/24/2012, 01:21 am

I would take this risk. The alternative is to allow the police a monopoly on armed firepower and we've all seen how well this can work out. Just ask any group that's been subject to oppression by the powers that be if they'd like to allow the government to be the only armed people.

At the end of the day, that's what the second amendment is all about. Politicians and Internet debaters can go on and on all they like about hunting and self defense, but really, the reason we can own guns in the United States is to make sure that the government can never become more powerful than the people. It's unfortunate that people forget this, as it's a very noble sentiment.
Okay, so if the sole reason to own guns is to counterbalance the government's power, then you need to lock up those weapons and only bring them out in case of a revolution. Leave the shooting of criminals to the police, and leave the hunting to predatory animals.

Comrade Pants

08/24/2012, 09:46 am

Okay, so if the sole reason to own guns is to counterbalance the government's power, then you need to lock up those weapons and only bring them out in case of a revolution. Leave the shooting of criminals to the police, and leave the hunting to predatory animals.

It's one of the reasons. However, hunting and self defense are rights recognized within the United States by the vast majority of states and citizens. Therefore, I really don't see your point.

Haggis

08/24/2012, 11:00 am

It's one of the reasons. However, hunting and self defense are rights recognized within the United States by the vast majority of states and citizens. Therefore, I really don't see your point.
You stated the reason for owning guns is to make sure the government doesn't get more powerful than the people, implying that the other reasons might be useful applications for guns, but not the reason for owning them.

(Incidentally, that reason seems rather silly to me, as 1) the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, helicopters and so on, so it has a vastly larger amount of power than the people with their flimsy guns, and 2) it seems barbaric and drastic to anticipate an armed rebellion in a supposedly democratic country, where the pen is mightier than any sword, or, indeed, gun.)

Comrade Pants

08/25/2012, 04:30 pm

You stated the reason for owning guns is to make sure the government doesn't get more powerful than the people, implying that the other reasons might be useful applications for guns, but not the reason for owning them.
I stated that that was simply the original reason. In time, it evolved to include other purposes. However, the original intent behind allowing the first citizens of the US to own guns was to throw off tyranny, lest it rear its head again.

(Incidentally, that reason seems rather silly to me, as 1) the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, helicopters and so on, so it has a vastly larger amount of power than the people with their flimsy guns, and 2) it seems barbaric and drastic to anticipate an armed rebellion in a supposedly democratic country, where the pen is mightier than any sword, or, indeed, gun.)

1) They didn't when the second amendment was passed. Besides, militaries rarely remain cohesive in rebellions. Any war against the proletariat of the United States would inevitably see swaths of the military join us.

2)
> United States
> Democratic
> Pick one

The law says we're a Republic, first off. If we're any sort of democracy it's a representative democracy which is hardly a true democracy. In any case, what few choices we have are presented to us by the media - owned by the rich and the corporations. What illusions of freedom we have that aren't quickly vanishing are presented to us by the vile traitors who bought our government and are intent on seeing themselves grow richer and richer.

It doesn't matter if you have the best pen in the world, really. If the government has all the guns and the media is controlled for the most part by the enemy, you're quite insignificant. This is why I'm glad I own guns, you see. Some day, people will be pissed off at the status quo. The time will come to serve our enemies their due. When that day comes, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll gladly join in.

Rather Dashing

08/25/2012, 04:40 pm

I would take this risk. The alternative is to allow the police a monopoly on armed firepower and we've all seen how well this can work out.
Yeah, the means by which the Japanese oppress their people with their police state is just awful.

Just ask any group that's been subject to oppression by the powers that be if they'd like to allow the government to be the only armed people.
Any group?

But really, the reason we can own guns in the United States is to make sure that the government can never become more powerful than the people.
The government has an army. The people don't even really have militias.

The government has drones.

The government has bombs, nuclear and otherwise.

The government has access to biological weapons.

The government has tanks.

The government has fighter jets.

The government has automatic firearms that can't be legally owned.

The government's yearly "Defense" budget has more than doubled from over 300 billion dollars to over 700 billion dollars.

They're slightly more powerful than Billy Joe Bob and his shack of old pistols and rifles.

Comrade Pants

08/25/2012, 04:57 pm

Yeah, the means by which the Japanese oppress their people with their police state is just awful.
That's a different cultural context, though. I mean, the Japanese government isn't oppressive now, sure, but just because they aren't doesn't mean that the governments of the United States, The Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, and scores more aren't oppressive.

Any group?
Yes, any.

The government has an army. The people don't even really have militias.

The government has drones.

The government has bombs, nuclear and otherwise.

The government has access to biological weapons.

The government has tanks.

The government has fighter jets.

The government has automatic firearms that can't be legally owned.

The government's yearly "Defense" budget has more than doubled from over 300 billion dollars to over 700 billion dollars.

They're slightly more powerful than Billy Joe Bob and his shack of old pistols and rifles.
See my prior comment on military desertions in rebellions. Notice what's happening in Syria with their military right now, or think back in history to how basically every competent officer - save for a few - and a large chunk of enlisted men deserted the United States army to join the Confederacy and you'll see my point. If the proletariat can legitimize their rebellion, members of the armed forces will join in. Hell, even if they don't, most soldiers I know would refuse to fire on their countrymen.

Oh, and you can legally own an automatic weapon. It's just unreasonably expensive since civilian legal automatic weapons have been legally barred from production thanks to a sneaky last minute amendment to the NFA passed in 1986.

Secret Fawful

08/25/2012, 05:24 pm

I'll fire on my countryman in a heartbeat. If they come near my house or pull a gun on me or so much as call me a name I'll open fire faster than Dick Cheney on a hunt. If I see some asshole on the street abusing a woman or one of my family members steps out of line and gets to abusing their kids or some shit I'll open fire on their ass. Don't be talking to me about whether or not people will open fire. I'll shoot you in the ass.

That's why I don't own a gun, because I'm trigger happy.

Haggis

08/26/2012, 01:59 am

Yes, any.
I doubt it. For one, groups that believe in nonviolent resistance would disagree with you. (If anything, they would want to see no group armed, as opposed to more than one group.)

See my prior comment on military desertions in rebellions. Notice what's happening in Syria with their military right now
And how did that revolution start? With peaceful demonstrations. Not with civilians brandishing guns. Of course it has degenerated into a civil war now, but that almost always happens with revolutions in some degree. And guess what? I doesn't matter if people own guns before it starts, because they'll be supplied with weapons anyway one way or another. In Syria, surrounding countries are supplying the revolutionaries with weapons, and together with parts of the army that have defected, I'd say there's never a need to own weapons in peacetime, if your reason for doing so is an expected revolution.

(Incidentally, I can't help wondering... have you ever considered emigration? Clearly you don't like the way things are going in your country, and I'm sure there must be other idyllic places in the world where the government is more to your liking.)

If the proletariat can legitimize their rebellion, members of the armed forces will join in. Hell, even if they don't, most soldiers I know would refuse to fire on their countrymen.
You just made the perfect point against civilians owning guns in the face of governmental oppression.

I'll fire on my countryman in a heartbeat. If they come near my house or pull a gun on me or so much as call me a name I'll open fire faster than Dick Cheney on a hunt. If I see some asshole on the street abusing a woman or one of my family members steps out of line and gets to abusing their kids or some shit I'll open fire on their ass. Don't be talking to me about whether or not people will open fire. I'll shoot you in the ass.

That's why I don't own a gun, because I'm trigger happy.
I applaud your honesty, and your decision not to own a gun for that reason. If everyone thought like that, we'd live in a perfect world.

Comrade Pants

08/26/2012, 02:22 am

I doubt it. For one, groups that believe in nonviolent resistance would disagree with you. (If anything, they would want to see no group armed, as opposed to more than one group.)

Oh, yes. Peaceful rebellion in the face of tyranny always works so very well. You know, like Tienanmen Square and Occupy and... Oh, wait...
And how did that revolution start? With peaceful demonstrations. Not with civilians brandishing guns. Of course it has degenerated into a civil war now, but that almost always happens with revolutions in some degree. And guess what? I doesn't matter if people own guns before it starts, because they'll be supplied with weapons anyway one way or another. In Syria, surrounding countries are supplying the revolutionaries with weapons, and together with parts of the army that have defected, I'd say there's never a need to own weapons in peacetime, if your reason for doing so is an expected revolution.
You're welcome to you opinion, but I happen to believe that a population trained, pre-equipped, and proficient in the use of firearms is much less likely to be eviscerated by their overlords and are far more likely to prevail.

The likelihood of prevailing against a modern, industrial army is slim, admittedly, but such things have happened before. Conventional wisdom would have seen the ill equipped and ill trained American colonists or Russian and Chinese Communists defeated in their revolutions, but see how they turned out? It's unlikely, but not a futile thing to hope for.
(Incidentally, I can't help wondering... have you ever considered emigration? Clearly you don't like the way things are going in your country, and I'm sure there must be other idyllic places in the world where the government is more to your liking.)
I refuse to leave. I'd love to live, say, in Sweden; but the fact is that for all of my Communist and anarchistic sentiments, I am something of a patriot. I love America. I love the United States. I see no reason why I should leave the land my ancestors helped build to the designs of traitors and inhuman slime like lobbyists and corporatists. That avenue is retreat, and I refuse it.

You just made the perfect point against civilians owning guns in the face of governmental oppression.

I fail to see how I did. I said *most* soldiers. By the time the ones who would shoot start to shoot, I say weapons free and have at 'em. Lines are typically drawn at that point in revolutions and people are typically on the sides that they would gravitate towards. Typically. In any case, by the time lead starts to fly, it's basically a standard guerrilla war.

Rather Dashing

08/26/2012, 09:22 pm

Oh, yes. Peaceful rebellion in the face of tyranny always works so very well. You know, like Tienanmen Square and Occupy and... Oh, wait...
You've switched your point from any group who has been tryanized would have wanted guns opposing to their oppressors to peaceful rebellion is impractical. By abandoning your original point you demonstrate poor debate principles.

There are nonviolent groups who would not have the opinion you've hoisted onto them. Whether or not you find the idea practical has no bearing on whether or not it's an idea that they have.
The likelihood of prevailing against a modern, industrial army is slim, admittedly, but such things have happened before. Conventional wisdom would have seen the ill equipped and ill trained American colonists or Russian and Chinese Communists defeated in their revolutions, but see how they turned out? It's unlikely, but not a futile thing to hope for.
The American Revolution really has very little to do with an armed populace and more to do with circumstance and support.

The British were across the globe. With the speed of travel in those days, communication and coordination at higher levels was effectively impossible. We're talking about a political body where the nervous system takes months to get the mind to move a hand, and months for the hand to report that it's on fire.

The British had three OTHER wars to deal with, each providing a greater potential gain AND loss for the country than the American colonial rebellion.

The French supported the colonists early on.

The British were not in the best economic shape at the time.

The colonists had a few really lucky breaks, specifically in Washington and figuring out the whole Benedict Arnold thing before he split off New England and gave control of the Hudson to the British(and potentially handed Washington over on a silver platter, too).

The British were never fighting for the seat of their government. They were fighting for a new but already vestigial limb far from home.

Essentially, the colonists won largely by virtue of timing, circumstance, and luck.

Chyron8472

08/27/2012, 08:08 am

The law says we're a Republic, first off. If we're any sort of democracy it's a representative democracy which is hardly a true democracy. In any case, what few choices we have are presented to us by the media - owned by the rich and the corporations. What illusions of freedom we have that aren't quickly vanishing are presented to us by the vile traitors who bought our government and are intent on seeing themselves grow richer and richer.

So what you're saying is, that you have a gun 1) for personal security, and 2) to maintain some semblance of personal control (or at least the feeling of control) over something that the government and the rich haven't taken over yet.

and 3) because it's fun.

Is that what you're saying?

Comrade Pants

08/27/2012, 11:43 am

So what you're saying is, that you have a gun 1) for personal security, and 2) to maintain some semblance of personal control (or at least the feeling of control) over something that the government and the rich haven't taken over yet.

and 3) because it's fun.

Is that what you're saying?
Essentially, yes.

You've switched your point from any group who has been tryanized would have wanted guns opposing to their oppressors to peaceful rebellion is impractical. By abandoning your original point you demonstrate poor debate principles.

There are nonviolent groups who would not have the opinion you've hoisted onto them. Whether or not you find the idea practical has no bearing on whether or not it's an idea that they have.

You'll find that I never really switched my point. I merely added that peaceful rebellion is impossible. I maintain that the oppressed would, in the vast majority of circumstances, find solace in the ability to defend themselves.

I wonder how things would have turned out had we been able to arm the Jews, gypsies, and others the Nazis disliked before Hitler rounded them up? I wonder what would have happened if we armed the Manchurians against the Japanese? Unit 731 might not have found things so easy, then. Just things to consider.

The American Revolution really has very little to do with an armed populace and more to do with circumstance and support.

The British were across the globe. With the speed of travel in those days, communication and coordination at higher levels was effectively impossible. We're talking about a political body where the nervous system takes months to get the mind to move a hand, and months for the hand to report that it's on fire.

The British had three OTHER wars to deal with, each providing a greater potential gain AND loss for the country than the American colonial rebellion.

The French supported the colonists early on.

The British were not in the best economic shape at the time.

The colonists had a few really lucky breaks, specifically in Washington and figuring out the whole Benedict Arnold thing before he split off New England and gave control of the Hudson to the British(and potentially handed Washington over on a silver platter, too).

The British were never fighting for the seat of their government. They were fighting for a new but already vestigial limb far from home.

Essentially, the colonists won largely by virtue of timing, circumstance, and luck.

Oh yes, because the United States has no enemies at all now and are certainly never bound to be overburdened again. After all, the United States military is just so good at counter insurgency operations, aren't they? I mean, it's done a splendid job ever since Vietnam, right?

Incidentally, I see that you didn't dispute the successes of comrades Lenin and Mao. Interesting.

Noname215

08/27/2012, 06:15 pm

I have an uncle who lives in backwoods Louisiana. He says he has neighbors who shoot at anything that moves within five feet of their houses. Now THAT is home defense!

Comrade Pants

08/27/2012, 06:55 pm

I bet they don't have to worry about break-ins very often.

Alcoremortis

08/27/2012, 09:39 pm

I bet they don't have to worry about break-ins very often.

Bet they don't have many visitors either.

Comrade Pants

08/27/2012, 10:59 pm

Bet they don't have many visitors either.

Eh, I'd take the security. I prefer to meet strangers away from where I keep my pets and the majority of my valuables.

coolsome

08/28/2012, 01:42 am

Eh, I'd take the security. I prefer to meet strangers away from where I keep my pets and the majority of my valuables.

What about the Pizza man?

Haggis

08/28/2012, 08:37 am

I wonder how things would have turned out had we been able to arm the Jews, gypsies, and others the Nazis disliked before Hitler rounded them up?
I wonder how things would have turned out if other European countries would have intervened earlier? I wonder what would have happened if the German government didn't make such an epic ******** mess of things when they could have seen trouble brewing from miles ahead. I mean, those Nazi weirdos had their own party army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung), for goodness' sake!

A lot of things went wrong there, but the arming of Jews and other oppressed groups wasn't the best possible solution. European leaders just completely bungled and majorly misjudged the situation, including German politicians before Hitler came to power.

To get back on topic though, sure, you can arm oppressed groups, but then it turns into a war, and it's about who can hold out the longest. Like a game of chess, if you will, but with human pawns. Sometimes outside intervention, with actual trained soldiers, is better. But in the end, there are only losers in a situation like that.

But this discussion is pretty useless, since most people who own guns do so for the kicks, not to prepare against possible oppression.

Chyron8472

08/28/2012, 02:02 pm

Sometimes outside intervention, with actual trained soldiers, is better.I'm sure the people in the middle east just love our soldiers being there.

Comrade Pants

08/28/2012, 02:48 pm

Again, I'm forced to agree with Chyron.

Is this thread Bizarro World?

Noname215

08/28/2012, 04:08 pm

What about the Pizza man?

“Yes, i’ll have two large Pepperoni pizzas and a 2 liter bottle of Coke. No, just leave on the driveway, because if I see you coming up to my door, i’ll blow your nuts off."

Haggis

08/29/2012, 04:27 am

I'm sure the people in the middle east just love our soldiers being there.
I probably used the wrong word, I should have said "outside assistance" instead of "outside intervention". I'm not at all a supporter of invading a country to "bring freedom" to it. But if there's an uprising brewing in a country and the rebels are requesting assistance, it should be given to them (provided the revolution is for a just cause).

In any case, my point was more that you can't just give everyone a gun and expect a happy ending. Much more important is organization. This is one reason why I find nonviolent resistance preferable: it can work without organization, with lots of isolated "cells" working to change the system from within. Properly organized, it could be even more successful.

Not that I'm planning a revolution or anything, but if I did, I'd shy away from violence.

Chyron8472

08/29/2012, 06:49 am

For some reason, what now comes to my mind is the Occupy incident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4&t=7) where cops were repeatedly pepper-spraying (it's a food product, essentially :D) nonviolent, sitting protesters in their faces.

I seriously think that those protesters should have been allowed means to defend themselves from this. I mean, sure, it's the police and the police are tasked by society to protect us, but what do we do when they overstep their authority? Yes, we can record their actions now with cell phone cameras, but if that wasn't a cop you could have beat the tar out of him for spraying you for no reason.

Haggis

08/29/2012, 08:05 am

if that wasn't a cop you could have beat the tar out of him for spraying you for no reason.
Well, actually... even then it wouldn't be legal to do so in most places. You're allowed to defend yourself to a reasonable degree, but usually kicking the living daylights out of someone is considered to be a bridge too far.

In any case, what you'd have to do is gather evidence (for instance by filming with cell phones, as you said) and present that to a judge. Then you hope for the best. It's not an ideal system, but way better than some sort of Wild West, where you shoot first and ask questions later (or not at all).

JedExodus

08/29/2012, 11:58 am

EA were promoting real-world weapon sales off the back of their new Medal of Honor game, which totally respects the soldier. What does everyone make of all this (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/375950/20120821/medal-honor-warfighter-electronic-arts-voodoo-tomahawk.htm)?

The promotion was part of an initiative known as Project Honor, a partnership between EA and, according to its website , "many elite weapon and gear manufacturers who equip the Special Operations Community" to sell weaponry and other gear to raise money for veteran's organizations.

When Project Honor was first announced in June, EA made the partnerships clear but did not elaborate on what each of the partnered brands would be selling either through their own websites or through the "Medal of Honor" website itself.

"Through unique partnerships program with EA for 'Medal of Honor Warfighter,' elite weapon and gear manufacturers who equip the Special Operations community, including Kaenon, London Bridge Trading, Magpul, SureFire, Mechanix Wear and others, will donate to the Navy SEAL Foundation and the Special Operations Warrior Foundation for the benefit of Project HONOR," a June 13 press release stated. "These esteemed weapon and gear manufacturers will also have their products featured in the game to help deliver the most authentic video game warfare experience this holiday season."

Haggis

08/30/2012, 01:51 am

Oh man, that's really a bridge too far. Just look at this quote from the article:

In the essay, writer Ryan Smith explained that the gamers (or really anyone in the general public) could "visit the official website for 'Warfighter' and click on a sponsored link that will take you to McMillan, the manufacturer of the gun. There you may purchase a real-life TAC-300 to your own specification (night-vision kit is optional!) and have it shipped to your local federally licensed gun dealer for pickup."

I'm glad they decided to cancel it. Gamers are a notoriously unstable bunch, and to give them such easy access to weapons is just asking for trouble. :D

And on another note, if EA cares so much about veterans, why don't they just donate a portion of the revenue from each copy of the game they sell?

Jennifer

08/30/2012, 02:53 am

And on another note, if EA cares so much about veterans, why don't they just donate a portion of the revenue from each copy of the game they sell?
I totally agree with that. It would be a better sentiment and it would lead to much better press for EA. I have a feeling it was just an idea between manufacturers in both industries to mutually increase their sales and their market visibility through charity.

But combining real life gun sales with a video game brand isn't a very smart thing to do, however, charity or not, due to the fact that there is still a lot of people out there who still believe that video game violence leads to real world violence (it may not be mentioned as much after Jack Thompson's disbarment, but the widespread belief is still out there).