Vivian on 22/2/2009 at 19:07
Well, some of the retardo-skunk will seriously give you schizophrenia. I'm with medial science on that one. Plus super-skunk is just too much, way too much. It's like drinking pure ethanol. Also, that was mainly the Daily Mail, who love getting all worked up about crap like that. Think Fox News.
But anyway, what are you on about? You can't blow a hole through someones skull from 20 metres with a spliff. I don't see how its relevant.
Starrfall on 22/2/2009 at 19:18
Clearly you have never heard of the new and infamous "skull blow" strain it's so powerful it can actually make people's heads explode if they even see the smoke!
Anyways what I'm on about is that when you start talking in terms of "hiding a piece of military fucking killing hardware" you just sound hysterical and it's kind of hard to take any of your other points seriously. Pro-gun people frequently do the same thing and it doesn't really improve the chances for an actual dialogue.
Muzman on 22/2/2009 at 19:21
I reckon there's some sort of critical mass of guns-meets-urbanity. Too much of both together and you have a personal security arms race of sorts in a hothouse of human disagreement. Once there it'd take a tremendous effort to douse the reaction (sounds like the Canadian example).
We managed to snip one reagent before it got to that point. The US, broadly speaking, for various legal and social reasons couldn't even if it wanted to (hint: it didn't).
I still reckon it'd work though: It'd take probably unheard of civic and public unity on the matter and even then it'd take a long time and might even get worse before it gets better. Highly unlikely though. And the benefits aren't all that easy to illustrate if where ever you're talking about isn't a total war zone.
(I don't worry too much arguing the minutia these days, assuming I can of course. Unless someone gets real funny absolutist ideas about crime and law or starts saying countries with gun control aren't free or on the top of a slippery slope to tyranny and cherry picks some censorship law as something impossible in the US because they know the populace is armed. That stuff's just too dumb to go unremarked).
Vivian on 22/2/2009 at 19:29
Come off it Starfall, from an objective perspective that's exactly what an automatic pistol is. It's not for tickling people, is it?
Thinking about it, I remember De La Soul claiming they had some weed that would make your head explode. But until Koki starts ranting about needed a massive spliff to protect his homestead thats beside the point.
Koki on 22/2/2009 at 19:35
Quote Posted by Fingernail
but we're talking about guns that are designed
for killing humans. There's no comparison really with any martial art, or boxing, because those things require quite a lot of training to actually result in someone's death, and not everybody can just pick up some boxing gloves (or an equally
illegal samurai sword) and do away with someone.
Babble about martial "arts" all you want, but the point is all of them were made to
hurt other people. Hell, Krav Maga's so damn popular precisely because it excels at just that.
Quote:
You say that the purpose is self defense - do you honestly believe there is LESS harm done thanks to the presence of guns in that society?
I believe that if I were a criminal I would think
thrice before breaking into a home if I knew the owner could have a firearm.
Or robbing a bar when any of the current customers could be carrying one.
Quote Posted by "Vivian"
Awesome, here we go. The main reason you're so very very convinced you need a gun or you're not safe is because you live in a place where its considered normal that lots of people have guns
Here's the plot twist: I live in Europe.
Quote:
The idea of people hiding a piece of military fucking killing hardware inside their sock drawer 'just in case' seems actually insane.
I'm with Starrfall on that one, except with less teasing.
[Edit]Oh and speaking of weed causing HIV - (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg) here's a nice chart made, ironically, by brits.
Starrfall on 22/2/2009 at 19:44
Quote Posted by Vivian
Come off it Starfall, from an objective perspective that's
exactly what an automatic pistol is. It's not for tickling people, is it?
Well then from an objective perspective (
http://www.armynavyshop.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/3260.jpg) this is also a piece of military fucking killing hardware but if you go around calling it that I'll still think you're being hysterical.
Whether or not you
care is absolutely one hundred percent up to you but just don't be surprised if others conclude that responding thoughtfully to you isn't worth the effort.
edit actually it might be funnier if we turn this into a weed debate now WHO'S WITH ME
fett on 22/2/2009 at 19:54
Starreh should post more.
Fingernail on 22/2/2009 at 19:55
Quote Posted by Koki
Babble about martial "arts" all you want, but the point is all of them were made to
hurt other people. Hell, Krav Maga's so damn popular precisely because it excels at just that.
Right, but you can't just pick it up and go from day one. And you were the one that made a link to kendo, I was just covering the bases.
And I'm with Vivian on this, I don't see how owning something designed for no other purpose than causing harm to another person is in any way "chilled out".
I don't think that everyone who owns a gun intends to harm, or kill, and I'm sure they know what they're doing.
He's just calling a spade a spade, though. If that's not a piece of military killing hardware, what exactly is it? A steak knife?
Vivian on 22/2/2009 at 20:02
Well yes. It is. But its a more primitive one and a less dangerous one. And to be honest, I would be equally worried if people were harping on about their inalienable right to have a combat knife.
Koki, that was presumptive of me, apologies. I suppose its some sort of personal problem then? :joke:
But all of this bluster is kinda a-priori justification for owning a gun, isn't it? It's not a good reason to have them all over the place. Don't the robber's just make sure they've got more and bigger guns? People still get robbed in the US, right?
Swiss Mercenary on 22/2/2009 at 20:08
Quote Posted by Herr_Garrett
We didn't. The revolution and the new government lasted for eleven days, when the traitor Kádár (a member or the government) called in, and back the Soviet troops. It wasn't an invasion, it was the beating down of the revolution. And the following 33 years weren't occupation, either.
Must totally explain the deliberation in the Kremlin about intervening then. And the continued Soviet military presence. And the implied threat of a repeat military intervention that hang over the entirety of Eastern Europe, should things not go the way the Kremlin wanted.
(Of course elements of the overthrown government wanted the Soviet troops back. Duh. Again, that's foreign intervention.)
Quote:
And, you know, because we
won the revolution is why the same people are still in power.
Slime has a good way of crawling back to the top. Just look at Putin - a good KGB old boy. Just because things have reverted back to where they were doesn't mean the revolution wasn't successful. And since this is on the subject of gun control, I'm pretty sure that revolutionaries having more guns would have prevented events from turning out the way they did.
Unless we are talking Reign of Terror mass executions, that is.
