angelofdeath Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 you're so amped on switzerland but man, won't you be disappointed when you find out they're socialist in a lot of ways :( also, that whole "every man is armed" thing is because they're famously neutral and those men are their citizen militia. you and your guns are not a stand in for the national guard so stop acting like switzerland and you are like, totally BFFs. also, your facts on Australia are completely off. check out the Australian Institute of Criminology stats before you harp on about how our laws have done nothing. i advocate the same foreign policy that switzerland holds and obviously i know full well what their system of defense is. you really think i dont know this stuff? cmon. i know full well switzerland has its share of statist policies that pock every nation state. the switzerland point is to show that the most dangerous implements folks like yourself wet the bed over at night are in civilian hands. full auto machine guns. and their crime rates are low. if 'easy access' is the 'problem' everyone in switzerland should be dead. the point? its not the gun, its the idiots behind the trigger. its funny people ridicule me for being skeptical of an over reliance on 'statistics' you know why? because each side has the empirical evidence on their side supposedly. how can this be? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 you are so out of touch with reality, its ridiculous. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ...what I'm saying is that as long as absolute self defense laws are on the books, there will be people who have an insanely liberal interpretation of them, and will act on that interpretation, regardless of whether or not they end up punished for it. It's hilarious how when hyperbole is used against you, you take it 100 percent seriously and begin to get all huffy about how people don't know anything, yet you're so quick to use it yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 ...what I'm saying is that as long as absolute self defense laws are on the books, there will be people who have an insanely liberal interpretation of them, and will act on that interpretation, regardless of whether or not they end up punished for it. what 'absolute self defense laws' are 'on the books?' where is it legal in the US to shoot someone because they yelled at you? this is nothing but pure display of your ignorance on these matters. the stuff you are advocating more or less already exists in the US and it hasnt worked. what do you propose? self defense being illegal? duty to retreat when your life is in jeopardy? someone comes at you with a gun but you didnt sufficiently prove that you ran to the very far corner of your house and set up a defensive position fast enough, while under fire, and YOU go to jail for failure to retreat and the assailant walks? whats also funny is most anti gun people say things like...'oh, no worries, if someone comes at me, i'll just splatter their brains over the wall with a baseball bat.' yeah, who is barbaric and violent again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I'm thinking of stand your ground laws, that type of thing. Buddy, nowhere is it legal to shoot someone because they yelled at you. But stand your ground laws can be applied to that..."oh, he was yelling he was going to kill me and got in my face, I was in legitimate fear for my life, I had to diffuse the situation in case he had a weapon." And again, you respond with this ridiculous/borderline retarded extreme point of view where you think that because I don't necessarily advocate the most extensive self defense rights possible that I'm anti self defense in any form, and don't understand how anything works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool_Hand Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 read this, then argue about pointless gun control: http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 As a gun owner, and especially as a vet, its ridiculously easy to buy new guns, and even easier to buy guns from shows and friends. Not being a convicted felon and not being in CA are pretty significant in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Hahaha, whoever put Mao Zedong on that pro-gun poster a page back has no idea whatsoever of Chinese history. lol, what a crock of self-seving biased bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griteeth Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 so these kids were trying to watch the dark knight rises in 4th period or something?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 And a deafening sound of crickets ensued Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+plus+ Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+plus+ Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Buddy, nowhere is it legal to shoot someone because they yelled at you. But stand your ground laws can be applied to that..."oh, he was yelling he was going to kill me and got in my face, I was in legitimate fear for my life, I had to diffuse the situation in case he had a weapon." And again, you respond with this ridiculous/borderline retarded extreme point of view where you think that because I don't necessarily advocate the most extensive self defense rights possible that I'm anti self defense in any form, and don't understand how anything works. all a 'stand your ground' law says is if your a legally allowed to be somewhere, you have no duty to retreat. that is it. essentially if you do not support the castle doctrine or 'stand your ground' you by definition advocate that all victims must run into a corner, hide, and exhaust all possible means before they are legally allowed to turn and fight. which is why in most statist shit pits, you have these instances where the burglar who breaks into the house with an axe and starts chasing you and you pull out a gun, and YOU go to jail and not them. you still can only use physical force and/or lethal force if your life is in danger. no where is 'this guy was yelling at me, i was in fear of my life, i shot, im innocent.' BS you are imagining. there has to actual evidence of fear for your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
injury Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 how, sir, can there be "actual evidence" of fear? what's acceptable in court? pretty sure if you shoot and kill, cops cant question the trespassing dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 As a gun owner, and especially as a vet, its ridiculously easy to buy new guns, and even easier to buy guns from shows and friends. Not being a convicted felon and not being in CA are pretty significant in that. what exactly is 'ridiculously easy' and how does this fit in with the liberal hysteria that you can order full auto ak47's off the interwebz and have them shipped to your house? so what you are saying is the last round of gun control laws that were supposed to solve everything, namely the brady check system, doesnt work. how come all government does is fix their last failure? we were told in 1994 when the brady checks came in that gun crime would be eradicated. we were told when clinton signed the crime bill, all gun crime would disappear. but your post does make one thing clear. no matter what measure is put into place, 'buying guns from shows and friends' will always happen because there is absolutely no way to get rid of it. no scribblings on paper will get rid of it, no screams from the roof tops will stop people selling things to people who want them. no wait periods, back ground checks or mag bans will stop this. no amount of penalties and regulations and laws keep heroine out of junkies veins, and no amount of scribblings in paper will keep guns out of peoples hands that want to use them to kill innocent people. all these laws do is disarm the peaceful people, create victim zones aka, fish in barrels, and allow only the bad guys to be armed. one point that is left out is that in most states training is required to get a CCW permit and the permit process usually takes 60-90 days+, excluding the time in class, etc. how is that for a 'waiting period' ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 how, sir, can there be "actual evidence" of fear? what's acceptable in court? pretty sure if you shoot and kill, cops cant question the trespassing dead. look, even in stand your ground states, you can 'whip it out' unless there is a means for your life to be in danger. in another words, someone HAS TO HAVE A FUCKING GUN OR KNIFE AND THE ABILITY TO KILL YOU. yelling, getting in your face, etc simply does not fit the bill. there might also need to be a disparity of force. ie. 4 guys beating the shit out of a guy. he is then justified in using lethal force. one 220 lb dude vs another 220 lb dude fist fighting, you cant whip it out. some how, i just dont think, 'i was scared because i was in a black neighborhood and i saw a black guy, so i shoot him in the head from a block away' is going to hold up as 'i was in fear of my life.' but maybe in your law and order shows, this actually happens. i really wish some of yall would actually understand how things work before making these sorts of comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morton Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I do not remember being told that "all gun crime would disappear" but then I am also interested in seeing the source on handguns saving more lives that fire extinguishers or that the Appalachians were not part of the US until the 1960's. Whaledog hunting is the only reason that people should have automatic weapons, and everyone knows that is best left to the Appalachian Navy anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morton Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 U.S. Chronicles Battleground America One nation, under the gun. by Jill Lepore April 23, 2012 Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore#ixzz2FG5hdxK4 Good article that gets into the laws and their evolution over the past 30 years. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore?mobify=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 so these kids were trying to watch the dark knight rises in 4th period or something?? And a deafening sound of crickets ensued Just wanted to embarrass you more for a taste-less, humor-less ''joke. Get em Real Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
injury Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 look, even in stand your ground states, you can 'whip it out' unless there is a means for your life to be in danger. in another words, someone HAS TO HAVE A FUCKING GUN OR KNIFE AND THE ABILITY TO KILL YOU. yelling, getting in your face, etc simply does not fit the bill. there might also need to be a disparity of force. ie. 4 guys beating the shit out of a guy. he is then justified in using lethal force. one 220 lb dude vs another 220 lb dude fist fighting, you cant whip it out. actually, it appears you can just "whip it out" in some states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine case in point ... Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed.[23] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."[25][26] from here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 you still can only use physical force and/or lethal force if your life is in danger. no where is 'this guy was yelling at me, i was in fear of my life, i shot, im innocent.' BS you are imagining. there has to actual evidence of fear for your life. some how, i just dont think, 'i was scared because i was in a black neighborhood and i saw a black guy, so i shoot him in the head from a block away' is going to hold up as 'i was in fear of my life.' but maybe in your law and order shows, this actually happens. i really wish some of yall would actually understand how things work before making these sorts of comments. No one is saying that these are going to be viable defenses that hold up in court. What I am arguing is that people will act upon their own liberal interpretation of a law. Regardless of whether their defense holds up or not, the damage will have been done. Also it's interesting to me how you're so anti-government and yet simultaneously seem to think that people should and will obey these laws chapter and verse, and any who don't will be fairly prosecuted. Just because a law says something doesn't mean people are going to follow it...isn't that what you've been harping about in this whole thread with regard to gun control and drugs and all that? Oh haha, never mind, it's because in your mind there is no such thing as an irresponsible gun owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html Knife attack at Chinese school wounds 22 children Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 umm, you know that article does not do much for your side, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Also it's interesting to me how you're so anti-government and yet simultaneously seem to think that people should and will obey these laws chapter and verse, and any who don't will be fairly prosecuted. Just because a law says something doesn't mean people are going to follow it...isn't that what you've been harping about in this whole thread with regard to gun control and drugs and all that? Oh haha, never mind, it's because in your mind there is no such thing as an irresponsible gun owner. I dont think people should follow this because its 'the law' i think people follow this because it respects other peoples rights. all stand your ground laws do is reinforce ones rights. they do not infringe on them. some of yall act like a stand your ground law is carte blanche to blow away someone looking at you side ways. they only change one thing, the duty to retreat. sure, some people wont 'follow' this law just like they wont follow your law that restricts 'clip' capacity. ijust like some people wont follow murder laws. if they do not follow basic moral precepts for using self defense they are just another murderer. but you miss an important part of the equation, people acting in self defense go to extreme length's, for some reason, to obey the law. i continually have conversations with permit holders who would rather cut off their left nut than to carry a firearm for protection in a place where it is prohibited. they actually can sometimes go into more hysterics than people like you do when someone talks about using a gun in self defense. if you actually know people in the gun culture, you'll find out that they have this absurd worshipping and almost idolatry of the law. its why they get so mad when a new gun laws are passed, because they are the only ones that will be following them. its a great error think that these people who are already thoroughly vetted through all the mechanisms that you like are going to be scared shitless to break a minor firearms law and then whip out their boom sticks and blast people for looking at them cross ways from 2 city blocks away. your posts demonstrate one thing very clearly. you do not understand the real gun culture of self defense in america. if you dont understand something, you look like a buffoon when talking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 so what you're saying is that the majority of gun owners are responsible and know and understand the overly complicated state and federal gun laws? k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html Knife attack at Chinese school wounds 22 children Knife attack WOUNDS 22 children Gun attack KILLS 28 people Seriously, can you not see how access to firearms makes assholes and lunatics 1000 times more dangerous than they already are? And when firearms are easily available - such as legally registered weapons in some one's wardrobe - there is a much higher chance that efficient killing machines will fall in to the hands of the lunatic assholes, you can't see that? Sure, I can have the right to choose not to defend myself, that's my right. But the weapons you choose to defend yourself with can also be used in offence. Just you having them lowers my security. Your intentions today may be benign but how can I be sure that they will be benign tomorrow, or that you will not be irresponsible and allow some lunatic to get a hold of your guns? weapons that kill rapidly and at a distance lower the general security simply due to their existence. If they did not, 28 people in Connecticut would not be dead. God, I wish I could just ignore these stupid discussions..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango 24 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 i advocate the same foreign policy that switzerland holds and obviously i know full well what their system of defense is. you really think i dont know this stuff? cmon. i know full well switzerland has its share of statist policies that pock every nation state. the switzerland point is to show that the most dangerous implements folks like yourself wet the bed over at night are in civilian hands. full auto machine guns. and their crime rates are low. if 'easy access' is the 'problem' everyone in switzerland should be dead. the point? its not the gun, its the idiots behind the trigger. its funny people ridicule me for being skeptical of an over reliance on 'statistics' you know why? because each side has the empirical evidence on their side supposedly. how can this be? they are militarily trained though, not some range shooter who thinks he could handle a hostage situation because he shoots at paper targets on the weekend. And I've never advocated the removal of weapons, I'm not scared of it but as a NORMAL HUMAN BEING when someone else has a gun that I don't know, I am worried about it. Just like I'm worried about when a cop pulls his weapon, I'm equally worried about a civilian rolling around tooled up. your incomprehension of that fact is absolutely mind boggling. it's a combination of both mate, you can't do anything about the idiots but you can sure as hell do something about the gun. oh and never once have you quoted a source so to me all those numbers you spout are absolute bullshit, at least the ones that I'm quoting come from a peer reviewed source, not some fucking picture I found on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walid Jumblat Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 ........, not some fucking picture I found on the internet. Yeah, that "argument by meme' really niggles my nads too. That one that puts up a bunch of dictators and implies that if their respective populaces had been armed so many people would not have died is so fucking ridiculous it makes my brain hurt. Quick lesson in Chinese history for AOD: Approx 30m people died of starvation after the Great Leap Forward due to Mao's silly agriculture techniques and the over-reporting of harvests in an attempt to please the 'Great Helmsman'. So 1. a gun won't save you from famine. 2. The people were willing participants of the events that led to their deaths, they were not shot/hanged/gassed by a dictator. Approx 6m died during the Cultural Revolution, they were largely beaten, starved, stabbed, etc. These were students, farmers and members of the public that were doing the killing. Then the country started to factionalise and power centers emerged with more killings. So, 1. Mao and many others were responsible for creating the Cultural Revolution but it was the people through their own FREE WILL that did the killing and if the people had been armed, the killing would have been far, far worse. 2. Mao ended up calling in the army to stop the killing and pull the waring factions apart. It was the govt's guns that STOPPED the killing, not caused it. CLIFF NOTES - The Chinese people were willing participants in their situation - being armed would not have saved them from famine - it was the public killing the public and if 'the people' were armed even more people would have died. I'm not as confident in Russian history or that of the other dictators. But I am educated enough, unlike the NRA it would seem, to know that history is very complex and that meme about dictators is complete and absolute crap used to persuade the uneducated and people who just want to confirm their biases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 your posts demonstrate one thing very clearly. you do not understand the real gun culture of self defense in america. if you dont understand something, you look like a buffoon when talking about it. Oh, yeah, because the values espoused by you and your buddies are indicative of the attitude held by an entire nation of gun owners. Again, you refuse to admit that there is any such thing as an irresponsible gun owner. Edit: and as far as history goes, I am confident enough in German history to say that the last two lines of the post above me hit the nail on the head for Hitler as well. Keep in mind that just arming the German population wouldn't have been a magic catalyst for toppling the Nazi regime, because the vast majority of National Socialism's victims came from outside of Germany...specifically countries that had already resisted (with guns and everything!) and been defeated. Not to mention the Nazi propaganda machine, which was extremely active in spreading disinformation among the German people, and doing a great job catering to considerable segment of the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango 24 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 godwin's law :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 an interesting look at AODs stats http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.