Page 18 of 25 FirstFirst ... 1314151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 540 of 724

Thread: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

  1. #511
    ankle biter guedita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    EPA
    Posts
    23,203

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    THEY'RE THE ONES HOLDING FLUFFY WHITE CATS AND SMIRKING IN A CHAIR BEFORE GUNNING DOWN A SCHOOL OBVIOUSLY

    8/30: Peaking Lights @ The Chapel
    9/3: Bear in Heaven @ The Independent
    9/11: Tomas Barfod @ The Rickshaw Stop
    9/12: Shifted @ Mercer
    9/24 - 28: Decibel Festival
    10/3-5: Hardly Strictly Bluegrass Festival
    10/4: Ought @ BoH
    10/5: The War on Drugs, Cass McCombs @ The Fillmore
    10/18-19: Treasure Island Music Festival

  2. #512
    Coachella Junkie SoulDischarge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vampire State Building
    Posts
    16,113

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    The good guys will be wearing this color:



    The bad guys will be wearing these:

    Quote Originally Posted by guedita View Post
    Thanks for giving us the opportunity to not give a fuck again.

  3. #513
    Member Grandma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Putting the "ass" in assisted living
    Posts
    1,845

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubesock Shakur View Post
    So the NRA still thinks in 1994. He fucking mentioned "splatterhouse". Turbografix16......
    I cannot tell you how loud I howled when I heard that. I want to beat the french out of Wayne LaPierre so fucking bad it hurts, preferably over and over again with the butt of one of his own guns within the state of Utah.

  4. #514
    Peaceful Oasis TomAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Zenith, Winnemac
    Posts
    40,861

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by bmack86 View Post
    THE BAD GUYS.

    Shouldn't you be able to tell the bad guys apart by their crazy capes and clever attacks based on their bad guy alter egos?
    also their handlebar mustaches.
    Quote Originally Posted by efrain44 View Post
    Anyone know who the guy in the Cardinals jersey is? I've seen him in pictures on the board and I thought I saw him this year.

  5. #515
    The Encyclopedia bmack86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bishop, CA
    Posts
    28,134

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quite!
    Quote Originally Posted by canexplain View Post
    Remember Hitler? I don't but here we are again .. cr****

  6. #516
    Member chbludevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    765

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by bmack86 View Post
    I'll just leave this here.
    Did anyone look at the pictures of the 'men who want more guns in schools' at the bottom of the article? Holy mother of God what a collection of fucking douchebags. They put the bros at Coachella to shame. Especially that first guy, I want to make a poopy all over his face.

  7. #517
    Peaceful Oasis TomAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Zenith, Winnemac
    Posts
    40,861

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Great opinion piece in the NYT last week. Just saw it today. The piece is full of logical reasoning supported by factual evidence, and so is unlikely to sway the drooling pro-gun set.



    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...is-not-enough/

    Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough

    By JEFF MCMAHAN


    In the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., and the resulting renewed debate on gun control in the United States, The Stone will publish a series of essays this week that examine the ethical, social and humanitarian implications of the use, possession and regulation of weapons. Other articles in the series can be found here.


    ~~~

    Americans are finally beginning to have a serious discussion about guns. One argument we're hearing is the central pillar of the case for private gun ownership: that we are all safer when more individuals have guns because armed citizens deter crime and can defend themselves and others against it when deterrence fails. Those who don't have guns, it's said, are free riders on those who do, as the criminally disposed are less likely to engage in crime the more likely it is that their victim will be armed.

    There's some sense to this argument, for even criminals don't like being shot. But the logic is faulty, and a close look at it leads to the conclusion that the United States should ban private gun ownership entirely, or almost entirely.

    One would think that if widespread gun ownership had the robust deterrent effects that gun advocates claim it has, our country would be freer of crime than other developed societies. But it's not. When most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesn't cease. Instead, criminals work to be better armed, more efficient in their use of guns ("quicker on the draw"), and readier to use them. When this happens, those who get guns may be safer than they would be without them, but those without them become progressively more vulnerable.

    Gun advocates have a solution to this: the unarmed must arm themselves. But when more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would once have got in a fistfight instead shoot the person who provoked them; people are shot by mistake or by accident.

    And with guns so plentiful, any lunatic or criminally disposed person who has a sudden and perhaps only temporary urge to kill people can simply help himself to the contents of Mom's gun cabinet. Perhaps most important, the more people there are who have guns, the less effective the police become. The power of the citizens and that of the police approach parity. The police cease to have even a near-monopoly on the use of force.

    To many devotees of the Second Amendment, this is precisely the point. As former Congressman Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, said in January 2011, "We have a right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms we have." The more people there are with guns, the less able the government is to control them. But if arming the citizenry limits the power of the government, it does so by limiting the power of its agents, such as the police. Domestic defense becomes more a matter of private self-help and vigilantism and less a matter of democratically-controlled, public law enforcement. Domestic security becomes increasingly "privatized."

    There is, of course, a large element of fantasy in Dickey's claim. Individuals with handguns are no match for a modern army. It's also a delusion to suppose that the government in a liberal democracy such as the United States could become so tyrannical that armed insurrection, rather than democratic procedures, would be the best means of constraining it. This is not Syria; nor will it ever be. Shortly after Dickey made his comment, people in Egypt rose against a government that had suppressed their freedom in ways far more serious than requiring them to pay for health care. Although a tiny minority of Egyptians do own guns, the protesters would not have succeeded if those guns had been brought to Tahrir Square. If the assembled citizens had been brandishing Glocks in accordance with the script favored by Second Amendment fantasists, the old regime would almost certainly still be in power and many Egyptians who're now alive would be dead.

    For the police to remain effective in a society in which most of those they must confront or arrest are armed, they must, like criminals, become better armed, more numerous, and readier to fire. But if they do that, guns won't have produced a net reduction in the power of the government but will only have generated enormous private and public expenditures, leaving the balance of power between armed citizens and the state as it was before, the unarmed conspicuously worse off, and everyone poorer except the gun industry. The alternative to maintaining the balance of power is to allow it to shift in favor of the armed citizenry and away from the police, again making unarmed citizens - including those who refuse on principle to contribute to the erosion of collective security by getting a gun - the greatest losers overall.

    The logic is inexorable: as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increasing incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. When most citizens then have the ability to kill anyone in their vicinity in an instant, everyone is less secure than they would be if no one had guns other than the members of a democratically accountable police force.

    The logic of private gun possession is thus similar to that of the nuclear arms race. When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which have become more vulnerable. The other states then have an incentive to get nuclear weapons to try to restore their security. As more states get them, the incentives for others increase. If eventually all get them, the potential for catastrophe - whether through irrationality, misperception, or accident - is great. Each state's security is then much lower than it would be if none had nuclear weapons.

    Gun advocates and criminals are allies in demanding that guns remain in private hands. They differ in how they want them distributed. Criminals want guns for themselves but not for their potential victims. Others want them for themselves but not for criminals. But while gun control can do a little to restrict access to guns by potential criminals, it can't do much when guns are to be found in every other household. Either criminals and non-criminals will have them or neither will. Gun advocates prefer for both rather than neither to have them.

    But, as with nuclear weapons, we would all be safer if no one had guns - or, rather, no one other than trained and legally constrained police officers. Domestic defense would then be conducted the way we conduct national defense. We no longer accept, as the authors of the now obsolete Second Amendment did, that "a well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free state." Rather than leaving national defense to citizens' militias, we now, for a variety of compelling reasons, cede the right of national defense to certain state-authorized professional institutions: the Army, Navy, and so on. We rightly trust these forces to protect us from external threats and not to become instruments of domestic repression. We could have the same trust in a police force designed to protect us from domestic threats.

    A prohibition of private ownership would not mean that no one could shoot guns. Guns for target shooting could be rented under security arrangements at the range. And there's perhaps scope for debate about private possession of single chamber shotguns for hunting.

    Gun advocates will object that a prohibition of private gun ownership is an impossibility in the United States. But this is not an objection they can press in good faith, for the only reason that a legal prohibition could be impossible in a democratic state is that a majority oppose it. If gun advocates ceased to oppose it, a prohibition would be possible.

    They will next argue that even if there were a legal prohibition, it could not be enforced with anything approaching complete effectiveness. This is true. As long as some people somewhere have guns, some people here can get them. Similarly, the legal prohibition of murder cannot eliminate murder. But the prohibition of murder is more effective than a policy of "murder control" would be.

    Guns are not like alcohol and drugs, both of which we have tried unsuccessfully to prohibit. Many people have an intense desire for alcohol or drugs that is independent of what other people may do. But the need for a gun for self-defense depends on whether other people have them and how effective the protection and deterrence provided by the state are. Thus, in other Western countries in which there are fewer guns, there are correspondingly fewer instances in which people need guns for effective self-defense.

    Gun advocates sometimes argue that a prohibition would violate individuals' rights of self-defense. Imposing a ban on guns, they argue, would be tantamount to taking a person's gun from her just as someone is about to kill her. But this is a defective analogy. Although a prohibition would deprive people of one effective means of self-defense, it would also ensure that there would be far fewer occasions on which a gun would be necessary or even useful for self-defense. For guns would be forbidden not just to those who would use them for defense but also to those who would use them for aggression. Guns are only one means of self-defense and self-defense is only one means of achieving security against attack. It is the right to security against attack that is fundamental. A policy that unavoidably deprives a person of one means of self-defense but on balance substantially reduces her vulnerability to attack is therefore respectful of the more fundamental right from which the right of self-defense is derived.

    In other Western countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States. The possible explanations of this are limited. Gun advocates claim it has nothing to do with our permissive gun laws or our customs and practices involving guns. If they are right, should we conclude that Americans are simply inherently more violent, more disposed to mental derangement, and less moral than people in other Western countries? If you resist that conclusion, you have little choice but to accept that our easy access to all manner of firearms is a large part of the explanation of why we kill each at a much higher rate than our counterparts elsewhere. Gun advocates must search their consciences to determine whether they really want to share responsibility for the perpetuation of policies that make our country the homicide capitol of the developed world.
    Quote Originally Posted by efrain44 View Post
    Anyone know who the guy in the Cardinals jersey is? I've seen him in pictures on the board and I thought I saw him this year.

  8. #518
    The Encyclopedia bmack86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bishop, CA
    Posts
    28,134

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    I completely agree with that article. I would love to hear responses from some of the cogent people who have argued that restrictions on guns would not be effective or would not even be logical (looking at John and Ivy.)
    Quote Originally Posted by canexplain View Post
    Remember Hitler? I don't but here we are again .. cr****

  9. #519
    Coachella Junkie sonofhal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    8,968

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    I think video games have a huge influence on gun violence. I often feel the need to take out anyone with a energy bar above their head.
    Quote Originally Posted by JustSteve View Post
    well, for all intensive porpoises it is, will sell out within seconds tomorrow.
    Quote Originally Posted by korbinn View Post
    It's jsut dawned on me that I'm overly confident and a extremely ocd perfectionist.
    Quote Originally Posted by kroqken View Post
    I don't give a flying fuck about the Kardashians, I doubt they know who Belle and Sebastian are.

  10. #520
    Coachella Junkie chairmenmeow47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    aquabania
    Posts
    17,494

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    i haven't argued it wouldn't be effective or logical, i've argued that i haven't heard an effective or realistic solution yet. but i shall read the article tomorrow and discuss, bryan
    Quote Originally Posted by malcolmjamalawesome View Post
    It's when we discuss Coachella that we are at our collective dipshittiest.

  11. #521
    Dark Lord mountmccabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Mission
    Posts
    11,986

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by bmack86 View Post
    I completely agree with that article. I would love to hear responses from some of the cogent people who have argued that restrictions on guns would not be effective or would not even be logical (looking at John and Ivy.)
    It is mostly reasonable and makes some very good points. There are a number of points that could, if highlighted and expounded upon, might sway some reasonable guns rights advocates. Though there are plenty of hateful things in this piece that make all but certain that this won't happen. I am going to approach this from the point of view of the discussion, explaining what makes sense to me, where I could be convinced with more information and what challenges might be faced.


    Quote Originally Posted by JEFF MCMAHAN
    people are shot by mistake or by accident.
    Mistakes and accidents are worth talking about. It is a reasonable argument that more guns will mean more mistakes and more accidents. Arming teachers or posting armed security guards in schools (for example) will lead to students, teachers and security guards getting shot by security guards, teachers and students (there have got to be numbers on accidents by police, military, at shooting ranges and hunting accidents).


    Quote Originally Posted by JEFF MCMAHAN
    Perhaps most important, the more people there are who have guns, the less effective the police become. The power of the citizens and that of the police approach parity. The police cease to have even a near-monopoly on the use of force.

    To many devotees of the Second Amendment, this is precisely the point. As former Congressman Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, said in January 2011, "We have a right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms we have."
    Pushing for a police state is not a reasonable line to take. That is, transitioning from talking about the power of the police to talking about the government taking away our freedoms is monumentally stupid.


    Quote Originally Posted by JEFF MCMAHAN
    Although a tiny minority of Egyptians do own guns, the protesters would not have succeeded if those guns had been brought to Tahrir Square. If the assembled citizens had been brandishing Glocks in accordance with the script favored by Second Amendment fantasists, the old regime would almost certainly still be in power and many Egyptians who're now alive would be dead.
    The Satyagraha/Twitter argument (in the article but better expounded upon on this board) is reasonable; that is the sea change that is not understood or accepted by many gun rights advocates. Clearly presenting the backing theories, anecdotes and explanations will be useful.

    That said the "brandishing Glocks" in "Tahrir Square" bit is an absurd straw-man.


    Quote Originally Posted by JEFF MCMAHAN
    For the police to remain effective in a society in which most of those they must confront or arrest are armed, they must, like criminals, become better armed, more numerous, and readier to fire.
    The talk of the arms race affecting the police is also reasonable and important. This is a good selling point and, I think, clearly made here.

    Unfortunately he goes on:

    Quote Originally Posted by JEFF MCMAHAN
    When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which have become more vulnerable.
    Comparing guns to nuclear weapons is not helpful. Find something reasonable and neutral to use to illustrate your point. Though really in this point the illustration was already made; the nuclear weapons bit was just tacked on for emotional effect.


    Quote Originally Posted by JEFF MCMAHAN
    Similarly, the legal prohibition of murder cannot eliminate murder.
    Comparing guns to murder is fucking hateful and not at all helpful. Again, this illustration did not need to be made. These discussions can be very heated and this sort of purposely inflammatory rhetoric makes them worse.


    Quote Originally Posted by JEFF MCMAHAN
    We rightly trust these forces to protect us from external threats and not to become instruments of domestic repression. We could have the same trust in a police force designed to protect us from domestic threats.
    Some talk on why we should completely trust the military and police would be helpful. Specific plans to keep them controlled and accountable even though they will be the only ones with guns would be helpful.


    Quote Originally Posted by JEFF MCMAHAN
    And there's perhaps scope for debate about private possession of single chamber shotguns for hunting.
    Possible exceptions for only "shotguns for hunting" seems very limited and short-sighted. Hunting in most states is tightly controlled and incredibly important for controlling game populations and predators. Maybe one could propose that rifles and such could be checked out (similar to the shooting range idea discussed) to those that acquire hunting permits or something but hunting cannot be dismissed with some half-assed line about debating.

    And growing up even though we were not that far outside of Detroit we lost chickens to foxes. I would not want to run, work or live on an animal farm without pistols, rifles and shotguns around to protect the livestock, especially if there was no hunting going on due to these bans.


    Quote Originally Posted by JEFF MCMAHAN
    Gun advocates sometimes argue that a prohibition would violate individuals' rights of self-defense. Imposing a ban on guns, they argue, would be tantamount to taking a person's gun from her just as someone is about to kill her. But this is a defective analogy. Although a prohibition would deprive people of one effective means of self-defense, it would also ensure that there would be far fewer occasions on which a gun would be necessary or even useful for self-defense. For guns would be forbidden not just to those who would use them for defense but also to those who would use them for aggression.
    it needs to be acknowledged that while I agree that eventually this would hold mostly true it would take time and in that interim we, as law-abiding citizens, would be less safe. You can deny the existence of such instances but you will be wrong, you can talk about their rarity but that will not matter to those that are attacked. You can talk about tasers and pepper spray (you should) but they only do so much. There will be casualties and that must be acknowledged and accepted. One can talk about reduced numbers or something like that but the way this article goes about it comes across as dishonest. Plus admitting that we're talking about people and lives rather than statistics and probabilities will make things like the accidental deaths numbers more real.

    Also there are rattlesnakes, coyotes, bobcats and plenty of other animals (I am only naming ones I* have seen myself) that I would not want to encounter in the wild without a pistol on me (or in my party).


    * I did not include bears on that list because no pistol would make me feel more safe seeing a bear.
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulDischarge View Post
    See how wrong you are, Tommy? Randy is agreeing with you.

  12. #522
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,390

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    That said the "brandishing Glocks" in "Tahrir Square" bit is an absurd straw-man.
    "brandishing glocks" is only an absurd way to state it, but the core of the argument is absolutely sound. The military refused to attack the citizens not solely because of solidarity with them, but also no doubt largely because they felt little threat from them. As I've said here before (in spite of Randy's protests), the world has turned and armed uprisings are generally less successful today than armed ones.


    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post

    Comparing guns to nuclear weapons is not helpful. Find something reasonable and neutral to use to illustrate your point. Though really in this point the illustration was already made; the nuclear weapons bit was just tacked on for emotional effect.
    I actually think it's an appropriate analogy to demonstrate his main point which is that a world where everyone has the same level of weapons is more dangerous than one where only few have them. Of course nukes and handguns are worlds apart, but I think even gun advocates would agree about nukes and it may give at least a couple of them pause to consider the guns in the same context. In that sense I think it's a great analogy. And to his other point, if everyone had nukes the richest countries would probably spend a lot more money defending against them and then coming up with something more dangerous.



    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    Some talk on why we should completely trust the military and police would be helpful. Specific plans to keep them controlled and accountable even though they will be the only ones with guns would be helpful.
    I don't think he's asking anyone to trust the military and police directly, but more the government that directs them. There already are laws regulating the policies and behaviors of the military and the police. These are legislated by our elected officials. Your request for more plans seems to imply you may believe these are insufficient. If that's true then in what way would that be?





    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    Possible exceptions for only "shotguns for hunting" seems very limited and short-sighted. Hunting in most states is tightly controlled and incredibly important for controlling game populations and predators. Maybe one could propose that rifles and such could be checked out (similar to the shooting range idea discussed) to those that acquire hunting permits or something but hunting cannot be dismissed with some half-assed line about debating.


    And growing up even though we were not that far outside of Detroit we lost chickens to foxes. I would not want to run, work or live on an animal farm without pistols, rifles and shotguns around to protect the livestock, especially if there was no hunting going on due to these bans.
    Rifles for sure should be legal for such things. Perhaps shotguns too, but definitely not semi-automatic, and IMO not even pump action (I don't give a fuck about skeet shooters).
    Last edited by jackstraw94086; 12-26-2012 at 08:14 PM.

  13. #523
    Coachella Junkie jackstraw94086's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,390

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    All the talk about criminals and guns is a diversion. Everyone on all sides seems to agree that the true criminals will still manage to get guns (although if we're all honest we'd accept that fewer criminals would have them if for no other reason than they'd be way more expensive).
    If everyone had guns we would be FAR more likely to be shot by someone other than these real criminals. It's them we're trying to keep the guns less available to. These debates don't start when a criminal shoots someone. They always start when a child shoots someone, or when someone who didn't seem like a criminal went and shot far far more people than any particular criminal ever has.

    These 2nd amendment thumpers have this deluded fantasy in their heads about confronting and killing armed assailants. Maybe even preventing a bank or gas station robbery. They refuse to accept the greater probability of themselves or their loved ones being shot because they have that gun.
    Last edited by jackstraw94086; 12-26-2012 at 08:17 PM.

  14. #524
    The Encyclopedia bmack86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bishop, CA
    Posts
    28,134

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    John, thank you for exactly what I'd hoped for: a coherent, logical dissecting of the article. I agree with most everything you said, although I do understand the strawman arguments that he makes, coming from a similar place of frustration. I have contemplated the effectiveness of something like a rental system recently, and I agree that, while it would be effective in the majority of situations, for rural populations that do face threats to their livelihood in the form of cattle and other livestock, guns are an important tool in preserving their lifestyle. I think that Germany's approach is a sound one: if you can show a manifest need to retain a firearm (you work in a position that will face threats, such as a security guard, driver of an armored vehicle or a rancher protecting livestock) then you can receive a permit to carry a firearm. Otherwise, you can rent one for shooting practice, hunting or other such diversions.

    And I do agree that there will be an unfortunately violent transitional period when these sorts of laws eventually do come into place (I say eventually because I truly believe that, whether it's 5 years or 100, we will eventually move in this direction.) Is that worth the long term safety that such a transition would eventually bring about? Not to the people killed, and that would truly and greatly affect me. I hate the idea of anyone being killed, senselessly or not, because that's one less person that gets to experience life, gets to cut me off in traffic and infuriate me, gets to meet someone and make them smile or get angry or have any effect on them at all.

    In summation, thank you for a cogent response John. I feel more informed having read your post.
    Quote Originally Posted by canexplain View Post
    Remember Hitler? I don't but here we are again .. cr****

  15. #525
    Peaceful Oasis TomAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Zenith, Winnemac
    Posts
    40,861

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by mountmccabe View Post
    Also there are rattlesnakes, coyotes, bobcats and plenty of other animals (I am only naming ones I* have seen myself) that I would not want to encounter in the wild without a pistol on me (or in my party).


    * I did not include bears on that list because no pistol would make me feel more safe seeing a bear.
    I have also encountered all these in the wild and it never once occurred to me that the correct response was to shoot the animal in question.
    Quote Originally Posted by efrain44 View Post
    Anyone know who the guy in the Cardinals jersey is? I've seen him in pictures on the board and I thought I saw him this year.

  16. #526
    Endearingly Dislikable RotationSlimWang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11,892

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    I have kicked the everloving dog shit out of all of those animals PLUS BEARS completely unarmed. What kind of pussies are they growing in Arizona.
    Quote Originally Posted by amyzzz View Post
    Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

  17. #527
    Peaceful Oasis TomAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Zenith, Winnemac
    Posts
    40,861

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    well, john was actually growed in Michigan.
    Quote Originally Posted by efrain44 View Post
    Anyone know who the guy in the Cardinals jersey is? I've seen him in pictures on the board and I thought I saw him this year.

  18. #528
    Endearingly Dislikable RotationSlimWang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11,892

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    That explains a lot. He never looked like desert people to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by amyzzz View Post
    Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

  19. #529
    Banned marooko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In your mouth!
    Posts
    19,687

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Did you offer them tea?

  20. #530
    Dark Lord mountmccabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Mission
    Posts
    11,986

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    "brandishing glocks" is only an absurd way to state it, but the core of the argument is absolutely sound. The military refused to attack the citizens not solely because of solidarity with them, but also no doubt largely because they felt little threat from them. As I've said here before (in spite of Randy's protests), the world has turned and armed uprisings are generally less successful today than armed ones.
    Gah. Tahrir Square is an example of a situation where guns would not have been helpful but it is not, however, proof that guns have no place in resistance. I said I'm on board with the Satyagraha/Twitter sea change and that explaining that and giving examples is a reasonable way of combating some of the problems of Red Dawn-fantacists but this was an awful way to approach it. Absurd straw-man examples (who is saying the protesters in Tahrir Square should have been armed?) like this are going to cause opponents to shut down and ignore you.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    Of course nukes and handguns are worlds apart
    Then it's not an appropriate analogy. Because this:

    Quote Originally Posted by jackstraw94086 View Post
    but I think even gun advocates would agree about nukes and it may give at least a couple of them pause to consider the guns in the same context. In that sense I think it's a great analogy.
    is bullshit manipulation.

    If you're trying to be a jackass (or are just venting rage) insult and belittle people. If you're trying to win arguments you cheat and manipulate with selective data and emotional appeals. But if you're trying to change minds act reasonable and treat people with respect.
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulDischarge View Post
    See how wrong you are, Tommy? Randy is agreeing with you.

  21. #531
    Endearingly Dislikable RotationSlimWang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11,892

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    I like how we're holding up Egypt as an example of a successful bloodless revolution. They just got a different leader the people don't want in place five months later. Now they're protesting again. Maybe somebody should give those fucking dipshits some goddamn guns.
    Quote Originally Posted by amyzzz View Post
    Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

  22. #532

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Once the orders are given to confiscate all firearms, how are we going to implement it? Honor system, door to door searches, selective at random searches?
    "why are you so annoying" TheKlein25

  23. #533
    Peaceful Oasis TomAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Zenith, Winnemac
    Posts
    40,861

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    IT'S TOO HARD DON'T EVEN TRY
    Quote Originally Posted by efrain44 View Post
    Anyone know who the guy in the Cardinals jersey is? I've seen him in pictures on the board and I thought I saw him this year.

  24. #534
    Banned marooko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In your mouth!
    Posts
    19,687

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    ...giving an answer.

  25. #535
    old school
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Innerspace
    Posts
    3,300

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Just give up the guns people and let the U.S. govt do the child and baby killing abroad. Nobody in this country seems to care or take note when its a foreign child killed then our military rationalize it by saying their parents should've kept them out of a war zone.
    "Oh this uncertainty is taking me over"

  26. #536

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by SlowMotionApocalypse View Post
    Once the orders are given to confiscate all firearms, how are we going to implement it? Honor system, door to door searches, selective at random searches?
    gun buyback programs have been largely successful in just about every community that's had one. LA is in the process of one right now and already has had about 8,000 guns turned in in exchange for giftcards. they won't be successful in getting all firearms off of the street but I don't think anyone is trying to remove every single gun from every single person last time I checked.

    people with large gun collections eventually die and leave their collections to friends or family members. many of them have no interest in the collection and buyback programs are a nice way for them to turn them in "no questions asked" in exchange for something that might actually need.

    the buyback programs don't even need to be done at the federal or state levels. some of them are funded privately, some are funded by donations and some are funded by charity fund raisers by local police departments.
    Last edited by scenicworld; 12-27-2012 at 09:36 AM.
    last.fm | facebook | twitter | tumblr
    2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011
    • 2012 • 2013 • 2014
    8/5 Arcade Fire (Sleep Train Amphitheater) • 10/3-5 Austin City Limits •

  27. #537

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by scenicworld View Post
    gun buyback programs have been largely successful in just about every community that's had one. LA is in the process of one right now and already has had about 8,000 guns turned in in exchange for giftcards. they won't be successful in getting all firearms off of the street but I don't think anyone is trying to remove every single gun from every single person last time I checked.

    people with large gun collections eventually die and leave their collections to friends or family members. many of them have no interest in the collection and buyback programs are a nice way for them to turn them in "no questions asked" in exchange for something that might actually need.

    the buyback programs don't even need to be done at the federal or state levels. some of them are funded privately, some are funded by donations and some are funded by charity fund raisers by local police departments.
    If the ultimate goal is the complete eradication of personal firearm ownership then millions will not be persuaded by buyback programs.
    "why are you so annoying" TheKlein25

  28. #538

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    then I guess it's a good thing that the ultimate goal isn't the complete eradication of personal firearm ownership.
    last.fm | facebook | twitter | tumblr
    2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011
    • 2012 • 2013 • 2014
    8/5 Arcade Fire (Sleep Train Amphitheater) • 10/3-5 Austin City Limits •

  29. #539
    Coachella Junkie faxman75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The murder capital where we murder for capital
    Posts
    27,915

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by scenicworld View Post
    gun buyback programs have been largely successful in just about every community that's had one. LA is in the process of one right now and already has had about 8,000 guns turned in in exchange for giftcards.
    Everything I'm reading says just over 2,000 guns have been turned in. In chicago they turn in 5-7 thousand guns a year yet murders continue to rise. More this year than last. My question is how are we measuring success? I'm all for less guns but I would stop short of saying it's a successful program if they don't make a dent in decreasing murders.

  30. #540
    Endearingly Dislikable RotationSlimWang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11,892

    Default Re: In which we discuss: Guns, Second Amendment, Weaponry, and Violence

    Quote Originally Posted by faxman75 View Post
    Everything I'm reading says just over 2,000 guns have been turned in. In chicago they turn in 5-7 thousand guns a year yet murders continue to rise. More this year than last. My question is how are we measuring success? I'm all for less guns but I would stop short of saying it's a successful program if they don't make a dent in decreasing murders.
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand completely inaccurate: Homicides in Chicago 1990-2012
    1990: 851[6]
    1991: 927[7]
    1992: 943[7]
    1993: 855[7]
    1994: 931[7]
    1995: 828[7]
    1996: 796[7]
    1997: 761[7]
    1998: 704[7]
    1999: 643[7]
    2000: 633[7]
    2001: 667[7]
    2002: 656[7]
    2003: 601[7]
    2004: 453[7]
    2005: 451[7]
    2006: 471[7]
    2007: 448[7]
    2008: 513[7]
    2009: 459[7]
    2010: 436[7]
    2011: 433[7]
    Quote Originally Posted by amyzzz View Post
    Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 248
    Last Post: 12-17-2012, 12:53 PM
  2. Violence in the Campgrounds BY SECURITY
    By jirish1321 in forum Questions
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 10:28 AM
  3. Replies: 395
    Last Post: 12-05-2009, 03:57 PM
  4. violence against kroqken
    By bug on your lip in forum Music Lounge
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 10-25-2009, 07:14 PM
  5. GUNS!!
    By marooko in forum Misc. Lounge
    Replies: 261
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 11:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •