Off Topic but ok

Cov · Post by **Cov** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:44 pm

thejamppa wrote:Cov, you're free to come in Finland, have fun with us. Some of our team members became 2nd in last years tournament in Japan.

At least one online buddy who knows about airsoft.

... The problem is not the person, problem is in between ears ...

I couldn't have said it any better.

... War is serious but war games belong into male-testosterone culture ...

Ah yeah the male hormon testosterone.
Where are the hypocratic, pathetic people when another news reveals another disaster, caused by a lunatic.
People then cry for REVENGE.
Yeah, as if revenge would prevent the next victims.
Boy, what are the humans stupid. They are so incredible stupid.
Instead of taking the problems of our society serious, they just get angry (but only after they got to know about some tragedy), then they cry for retribution, and the press is very good in lighting the fire.

Once more, do we SOLVE problems ?
No we don't. We just wait until it's too late cause it's easier.
That's administering problems as far as I can see.
Isn't that rather dumb ? That's even very dumb and the very reason for why we are going to extinct ourselves.

If we were smart, we would care more, we couldn't sleep anymore until our society is a better place, an acceptable place to live in.
What do we do ? We read the most tragic news in newspaper every day. We watch the most devastating news on television. And after that ? We go back to our day-to-day job.

I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.

But ... as soon as your OWN ASS is burning, you start crying and the whole world has to do something about this injustice which has happened to you.
I would then ask: where were YOU when other people became victims ?
Didn't you acknowledge it and continue with your life as usual ?
When injustice happens to others, and that happens EVERY SINGLE FU***NG DAY ALL OVER THE WORLD, who does something about it ?

Revenge for the remaining victimes ?
Revenge for the society, to feel better ?
And you really still believe in deterrence ?

Uhm, what about the next victims ? Yeah, I mean those who are NOT victims yet.
Are we as a society doing enough to protect them enough ?
No, you don't. And why not ? Because YOU ASS IS NOT BURNING YET !!

But once life has chosen you to become a victim, you WILL start thinking about this issue more serious. When it's too late.

The human's attributes are GREEDY, SELFISHNESS and being DESTRUCTIVE.
Recognize yourself ?

Thought so.

I tell you what. I feel shame that I belong to your species.

I really do.

spookmineer · Post by **spookmineer** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:01 pm

Cov wrote:I feel shame that I belong to your species.

Somehow that doesn't sound right.

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:00 pm

So, are you saying that having guns will solve problems and help the world be a better place?

If so, then I am not convinced.

Cov · Post by **Cov** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:24 pm

1. I didn't say that.

2. Besides this, are you aware that guns not only kill the good ones ?

When the armed police helps preventing crime from happening, would they have managed without weapons ?
I don't think good words would have helped.
If it comes to this stage, all other attempts have failed before.

Taking all the kills of this world that happened out of self defense.
Were they not the only deciding factor of who survives ?
Meaning, in those cases people did not intend to kill but have been forced by circumstances to save their own lifes by killing the killer.

3. I am not trying to convince anybody.
This issue we are talking about is a NO-BRAINER.
The most urgent problems we have in our world are solved more easily than you think.
For the reasons of why that is not happening, please look up the 3 human's attributes from previous posting.

4. The only thing initializing improvements to our world is only done by something 99% of all people wouldn't like to see at first.

Go'n figure.

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:52 pm

Cov wrote: This issue we are talking about is a NO-BRAINER.

Exactly.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:06 am

Cov wrote:Random straw man nonsense

It's a simple fact "my friend" that guns are a hot topic, guaranteed to polarise opinion and get heckles raised. It's also pretty clear, judging by the title you gave your thread, that you were well aware of that, and you're the one having a tantrum about it? I only pointed out that you shouldn't be surprised when people don't react with unanimous praise. You've every right to argue your case, and to be honest I couldn't care less what you do in your spare time, but next time you go off in a huff because you didn't get the glowing enthusiasm you wanted please be so kind as to take your straw men with you.

Calculus · Post by **Calculus** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:39 am

Here's two scenarios:

Scenario 1: A Madman carrying an ILLEGAL AK-47 walks into a store and starts unloading his clip into the crowd. The people panic and run around trying to find cover but can't get out of store. When the madman's clip runs out, he calmly reloads with a fresh clip and starts systematically excecuting people... kids...their parents... whoever. A women makes a break for the door and gets shot in the back. The people inside only hope is to pray that this man does not kill them and to wait till the police show up. END RESULT : Everyone in store is killed in store. 1 arrested madman.

Scenario 2: A madman with an ILLEGAL Ak-47 walks into a store and starts shooting into the crowd. 2 seconds later the crowd pulls out their handguns and kills the madman. Scenario Over. END RESULT: Sadly a few people are injured or killed. 1 DEAD madman

Taking away guns does NOT take away the problem...

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:45 am

True. Guns are a symptom, not the cause, of an endogenous disorder that we haven't cured, so why not treat the symptom?

Cov · Post by **Cov** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:03 pm

blackworx wrote:... but next time you go off in a huff because you didn't get the glowing enthusiasm you wanted ...

Sorry, I don't reply to arrogant time waster.

Calculus wrote:Here's two scenarios: ...

In a world that I'd like to live in, every single individual would be an important part of our society.
Therefore anyone being out of order would be detected in early stages and prevention could work at the most effective time possible.

Only thing hindering us from doing it this way is that individuals don't count in our society ... people with money do.

Could I get an answer to the following questions please ?

Can you buy honest friends ?
Can you sleep in more than one comfortable bed ?
Can you eat more good food than until your stomach is full ?

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:00 pm

Calculus wrote:Here's two scenarios:

Scenario 1: A Madman carrying an ILLEGAL AK-47 walks into a store and starts unloading his clip into the crowd. The people panic and run around trying to find cover but can't get out of store. When the madman's clip runs out, he calmly reloads with a fresh clip and starts systematically excecuting people... kids...their parents... whoever. A women makes a break for the door and gets shot in the back. The people inside only hope is to pray that this man does not kill them and to wait till the police show up. END RESULT : Everyone in store is killed in store. 1 arrested madman.

Scenario 2: A madman with an ILLEGAL Ak-47 walks into a store and starts shooting into the crowd. 2 seconds later the crowd pulls out their handguns and kills the madman. Scenario Over. END RESULT: Sadly a few people are injured or killed. 1 DEAD madman

Taking away guns does NOT take away the problem...

Scenario 3: Madmen and criminals all over the country carrying easily-obtained LEGAL handguns pull out their weapons and begin blasting when, according to their own subjective reality, they feel they have good reason to do so. END RESULT: US firearms death rates.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:32 am

Cov wrote:Sorry, I don't reply to arrogant time waster.

Thanks for your reply; apology accepted.

Cov wrote:In a world that I'd like to live in, every single individual would be an important part of our society.
Therefore anyone being out of order would be detected in early stages and prevention could work at the most effective time possible.

Sounds to me like the perfect recipe for a nightmare conformist future.

Cov wrote:The human's attributes are GREEDY, SELFISHNESS and being DESTRUCTIVE.

You can't have it both ways. You can't call people out of touch with their own reality because of what you KNOW to be so true about human behaviour in one breath, and then proffer a hopeless ideal in the next. If you think that's just me being arrogant, what can I say? I sometimes have an unfortunate manner. Doesn't make what I'm saying any less true.

Sylph-DS · Post by **Sylph-DS** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:26 am

The problem with this is that a BIG part of gun crimes are committed using legally owned guns. On top of that, having a legal weapon trade in progress makes it that much easier to have an illegal weapons trade.

It's basically like Nick says. Do you think that illegal AK cam into the country illegally? It's much easier to illegally sell guns that were produced and shipped to be sold legally.

And then there's the issue of people buying guns just because they like them 'as a toy', rather than as a weapon, but eventually end up using them as a weapon when pushed over a certain edge.

I don't know what the statistics on this are when it comes to guns, but where I live, the big problem is knives rather than guns, so lets start there. When a person carries a knife, that person becomes statistically 40% more likely to get stabbed. Of course I can't deny that it's part because the people that are likely to get stabbed for other reasons are also likely to carry knives, but that's not all of it. When a person carries a weapon, that person suddenly has twice the confidence he had before when it comes to potential combat situations. Making him more likely to go into them. At this point, regardless of whether the weapon is used in said fight, it is already a fight that would've most likely been avoided if the person hadn't carried a weapon.

Giving people weapons increases the chance of them getting into fights, and then the weapons haven't even been used yet.

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:34 am

Guns give means to kill, its far easier to kill with gun than with a knife. Gun doesn't require much training. Just point and pull trigger. But guns themsleves don't kill peoples, its clichÃ© but its truth.

I still don't think any civilian needs more than a shot gun or few and hunting rifle. Assault weapons for civilians is insanity.

In perfect world there would be no guns.

In near perfect world only legal guns for civilians would be sports guns and hunting weapons, everything else illegal and period.

Calculus · Post by **Calculus** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:42 pm

The problem of trying to ban any type of gun, be it handgun or heavy assault, is that it opens the gate. Once the system is set and heavy assault guns get banned, whats going to make those in control stop? We know that the dream for many is to have a gun free america, and were these people to get in control and this system set in place, you can see how things would start to ramp up. Dont open the door, keep our freedom, and keep our guns.

Really, even if guns are banned, everyone will still have them. I know multiple people who bought loads of guns when Obama was elected and they aren't going to let go of them any time soon.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Back in 1993 (could not find anything later), according to the above link, the gun death rate was 3.72 people out of 100K (not including suicide). And we also had the highest percent of households owning guns, %39.

We need numbers and ideas that we can see in action, not hypothetical solutions.

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:33 am

Calculus wrote: Really, even if guns are banned, everyone will still have them. I know multiple people who bought loads of guns when Obama was elected and they aren't going to let go of them any time soon.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Back in 1993 (could not find anything later), according to the above link, the gun death rate was 3.72 people out of 100K (not including suicide). And we also had the highest percent of households owning guns, %39.

We need numbers and ideas that we can see in action, not hypothetical solutions.

Forgive me if I don't want to go into this again, but there's already an existing thread here on this subject, with plenty of more up-to-date statistics, which as always will be duly ignored or rationalised according to one's own ideological/religious beliefs.

Enjoy...

Calculus · Post by **Calculus** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:29 am

Sorry 'bout that, I was just looking for a quick reply to Neil, who seems to be all too anxious to tell us about guns and death...

Relativly new here, so please bear with me... Haven't dug through all the old threads yet,

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:58 pm

No need to apologise, I was just pointing out a thread with links to more recent statistics, which might be helpful rather than having to google it all again - it's certainly not my place to try and stop you discussing what you want wherever you want.

I lost interest in that particular thread at the "if not for the United States, all of Europe would be speaking German right now" point, and on reflection I don't have anything to add to what was previously said there, but if you and others are happy to restart the debate then by all means have at it....

Calculus · Post by **Calculus** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:09 pm

Ok, let the show begin...

Wow, just discovered that thread is twelve pages long...

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:20 pm

Hi,

So, lets turn the logic of not wanting any guns banned around: if no guns are banned at all, what happens?

Are fully automatic weapons allowed without a license?

What about hollow point bullets?

What about really big guns?

What about really big guns with exploding shells?

What about grenade launchers, or mortars?

What about shoulder launched missiles; laser guided or otherwise?

What about artillery, or for that matter what would stop you from owning an ICBM?

Where will it stop, if you have no limits on owning guns?

Where does my right to live free from the threat of being killed by every Tom, Dick, or Harry, who are running around with any and all sorts of weapons?

I think that we would be much better off limiting the guns to the "well organized militias".

Just like the Constitution starts with "We the people" -- the most important part of the law is at the beginning of the first line:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Calculus · Post by **Calculus** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:13 pm

Woa! Hold your horses, Neil... This is not a sound basis for a good argument.

Its not that simple.

For one, the weapons that you just listed are rather expensive, don't you think? Way out of the price range of average joe (although I'm sure he would love to have one so he could blast your home into oblivion... not)

Where does my right to live free...

Where does Tom Dick and Harry's right to live free come into play here? Or, do people with guns have rights anymore? You're just one person, and there are MANY people who enjoy shooting for sport. Why should they be denied something that has entertained generations of Americans?

Why? Are guns bad? If so, Why? Are cars bad? They kill people too... What about kitchen knives... hunting knives... or how about swords? People collect swords, you know... Should swords be banned? I don't know where to stop with your logic.

spookmineer · Post by **spookmineer** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:49 pm

Most objects you mention aren't nearly as easy to kill with as a gun.

In principle, no one in my country is allowed to own a gun, but for certain groups there are exceptions, for example people who shoot for sports can get a license.
You have to be a member for at least 1 year before you are allowed to own a gun, and even then, you are bound by legislation how to transport a gun: unloaded, in a closed case with a lock. Ammunition in a separate case and locked.

Knives are regulated as well, for example, stilettos (> 7 cm) are completely forbidden.
You can buy a baseball bat, but you are urged by the salesman to pack it unrecognisably when going anywhere but a baseball field with it.

In short: no baseball bat to a soccer game, no kitchen knife to a disco.

Visibly carrying a fake firearm (airsoft) in a public space (a street), even if it's smaller or in a different colour, is an offense. You also need to be able to prove that you are carrying the airsoft weapon to a place where the game takes place.

Percentage wise, we have a lot less killings with a firearm than in the USA.

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:08 pm

I don't believe the problem is with the tool, but rather with the culture. American pop culture is full of firearms being used for harmful purposes. 50 Cent brags about how many times he's been shot. All kinds of popular rap talks about Gats and countless other slang terms for guns, and foolish kids look up to the rappers and try to emulate them.

Treating the symptom does nothing to stop the disease.

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:48 pm

Hi,

Please reread the whole sentence that you partially quoted -- you've distorted the meaning of what I wrote.

A car is designed to be transportation. A gun is designed to shoot a bullet. They are not really equivalent -- used for their designed purpose, the gun has a lot better chance to kill someone.

All rights must be balanced against the costs they incur in society. Widespread and unfettered gun ownership has already lead to intolerable levels of violence in our society.

People get killed with guns in crimes of passion.

People get killed with guns by insane/deranged people.

People get killed by accident with guns that are not secured properly.

People get killed by legal guns that have been stolen from their owners.

People get killed by guns that are bought legally; without any background checks.

People get killed with guns that are bought illegally. The ample supply of legal guns makes the illegal guns much harder to deal with -- and what's the difference, really?

People get killed in hunting accidents, including bystanders.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are for hunting. Handguns are not for hunting. Semiautomatics are not for hunting -- and certainly not fully automatic weapons.

Hunting is a sport, these days -- almost no one depends on hunting for their livelihood. Can you show me "a well regulated militia" anywhere? All the other (hand) guns are a self-fulfilling promise: you think you need one to protect yourself from all those other people who have guns.

It just escalates in a self-perpetuating cycle, and this stupidity makes us all less and less safe. Like I said before, my right to live without the violence of a bunch of over-confident people with their thundersticks...

Weapons solve nothing.

Cov · Post by **Cov** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:49 pm

It's nice that we can use a forum for exchanging thoughts about important part of our lifes and how to improve things.
But please let's do things properly.

Nobody rushes you in replying like in a real time conversation.
You can sit down and take a deep breath before typing what's going through your mind.

The exchange is not as spontaneous anymore, but considering how little time people have these days, to sit down and have a decent conversation, using a forum is the next best thing.

So please, don't hurl angry comments into this thread and let's rather show each other that a mature conversation among Computer enthusiasts is possible.
There are always people who don't care, but I'm asking you to try your best.

Alright, so when discussing about a sensitive subject like the level of aggression in our society, aren't we all guilty as charged ?
Haven't we all gone through that feeling of powerlessness at one stage or another ?

During your childhood, between your parents and you ?
During your time at school, between your teacher and you ?
Then later, between your wife or husband and you ?
Not to forget between your employer and you.

Every single one of us can whistle a song about other people abusing (or trying to abuse) their position to put you under pressure.

To understand where this feeling of powerlessness leads to, is very important to understand why it reoccurs as "dejavu" effect during the whole of our lifes.
Some people can cope with this feeling, others cannot.
What you will see most often is, that one injustice happens to one person and this person is giving it forward (without thinking) to someone else, usually the weakest link.

Example: Father has been blamed by employer (not justified), father comes home and starts an argument with wife (not justified), wife starts argument with child (not justified), child treats dog badly (not justified), dog bites whoever tries to get close.

A typical domino effect and happening every day all over the world in all kinds of shapes & variations.

I think that this is where the seed lies which can grow into far worse examples than just mentioned.
We all know the many reports on TV and in newspapers about people who literally "derailed" from their lifes.

Can't we see from there that deterrence is not the whole answer ?
And neither is revenge.
We are dealing with human beings here, and they do not follow logic all the time.
Specially when affect and accumulated aggressions come together.

Do you think, when considering this, that a different approach about how we deal with CRIME, wouldn't be worth trying out ?

Your thoughts please.

ACook · Post by **ACook** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:30 pm

Calculus wrote:
Where does my right to live free...
Where does Tom Dick and Harry's right to live free come into play here? Or, do people with guns have rights anymore? You're just one person, and there are MANY people who enjoy shooting for sport. Why should they be denied something that has entertained generations of Americans?

There's gun clubs with shooting ranges, you can keep any gun for sport at the range, where it's safe. What would you do with a gun at home?

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:09 am

Calculus wrote:Woa! Hold your horses, Neil... This is not a sound basis for a good argument.

The impression I have gained in the short time I have been browsing the Off Topic forum is that Neil is a man of high principals in which he firmly believes. There is no room for argument because as he is against violence, war, oppression, poverty, pollution, so he believes he is 'right' because all these things are bad and undesirable.

On the subject of the right to carry arms - which I think is in the US constitution? - I happen to agree with him. As a British subject, I am used to living in a society where even the police do not routinely carry firearms. I'm still getting used to seeing coppers with assault rifles at Heathrow Airport for example.

We do live in a democracy, and if the majority feel that it is right that American citizens should be able to have guns then so be it. The alternative is that people who think that they are right because they are against violence will have to force their point of view onto a majority, who whilst perhaps 'wrong' from a moral point of view, are right because they are the majority.
We do have freedom of speech and people who share Neil's opinions are quite free to attempt to change the views of others.

Anyway, this topic started off with some pictures of some impressive looking, but nonetheless, toy, guns. They are, as many people have pointed out, harmless, and have no bearing on the issue of whether people should have the right to carry real guns or not. I think there has been a degree of overreaction here by the pacifist element, especially as the whole subject has already been covered at very great length in another thread.

Calculus · Post by **Calculus** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:22 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:Please reread the whole sentence that you partially quoted -- you've distorted the meaning of what I wrote.

sorry, Neil, I didn't really think that it was logical that you meant that Tom Dick and Harry were really out to get you... Typical archenemies, I guess.

NeilBlanchard wrote:All rights must be balanced against the costs they incur in society. Widespread and unfettered gun ownership has already lead to intolerable levels of violence in our society.

Please feel free to post your statistics, for I doubt that it is as severe as you imply...

NeilBlanchard wrote:People get killed with guns in crimes of passion.
People get killed with guns by insane/deranged people.
People get killed by accident with guns that are not secured properly.
People get killed by legal guns that have been stolen from their owners.
People get killed by guns that are bought legally; without any background checks.
People get killed with guns that are bought illegally. The ample supply of legal guns makes the illegal guns much harder to deal with -- and what's the difference, really?
People get killed in hunting accidents, including bystanders.

Ho hum... How does taking away legal gun ownership solve any of these problems?

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hunting is a sport, these days -- almost no one depends on hunting for their livelihood. Can you show me "a well regulated militia" anywhere? All the other (hand) guns are a self-fulfilling promise: you think you need one to protect yourself from all those other people who have guns.

I think 'SPORT' is the keyword here. I dont think I need one to protect my self from all the Tom's Dick's and Harry's out there, their just damn fun to use.

NeilBlanchard wrote:Weapons solve nothing.

I hadn't realized that weapons were supposed to solve problems, I was under the impression that some people simply like to blast tin cans and pumpkins into little bits and peices...

ACook wrote:What would you do with a gun at home?

Uhh... Perhaps shoot it once in a while? Yup, thats what I'd do.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:41 am

judge56988 wrote:I think there has been a degree of overreaction here by the pacifist element

The initial protests were quite innocuous. By the time the overreacting kicked in everyone was at it. For my part I know why I adopted the tone that I did, but still I should've resisted the urge. Inflammatory/patronising language like that is one of the reasons people end up hitting each other in the first place.

They are, as many people have pointed out, harmless, and have no bearing on the issue of whether people should have the right to carry real guns or not.

But for many of us, toy guns do have a bearing on whether or not guns themselves are even conscionable in the first place, which I think is where Neil was coming from with his initial "Why?"

I understand the point is almost completely moot anyway, as you can't uninvent guns any more than you can uninvent fear itself. Fists, sticks, knives, bombs, guns, missiles, nukes - it makes no difference - the issue stays as long as people are unable to settle differences without resorting to violence, no matter what the reason. As Einstein said: "The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one."

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:01 am

Hello,

Let me restate this, to clarify myself:

We must strike a balance between the right that all of us must have: to live without the threat of anybody else shooting us -- and the right/privilege of anybody who wants to own a gun.

A gun is designed to shoot a projectile, and it is intended to be used to shoot things. If you want to own a gun, you should be able to justify why you want it, and how you are going to safeguard it -- and these reasons must outweigh the chances of something going wrong; resulting in harm to someone else.

All good laws work like that: they must apply to all situations, and they must balance between different effects, and between the various rights that all of us must have.

If you want to have a gun, then we have to be able to prevent an insane person or a criminal from also getting a gun.
If you have a gun, we have to prevent it from falling into the hands of someone else who doesn't meet the same criteria that you had to meet.
We need to try and prevent the presence of a gun from enabling a crime of passion -- people tend to think that if they have a gun, that they can use it to enforce their will on someone else; and this can mean harming that other person.

Once guns are omnipresent, it becomes a whole other issue.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:31 am

Calculus wrote:Ho hum... How does taking away legal gun ownership solve any of these problems?

It certainly doesn't when Tom, Dick and Harry already have guns anyway

. Anyway, if you had to go out and procure an illegal firearm for your crime of passion/red-misted revenge/whatever, would that not make you think twice?

Why shouldn't ownership be an issue in a society with a concurrent history of violence? Ok, so taking away guns won't fix the REAL problem, but surely that's something that will remain impossible as long as TD and H are all running around with guns shooting each other?