Offcourse, and what is a parody? a thruth told by comedians
Offcourse, and what is a parody? a thruth told by comedians
Yeah right cowboy. You have no idea at all what it's like to live in a country like I live in and you can't possibly understand how good it is to know that psychos like you can't get their hands on automatic weapons and mow down a school full of innocent kids.
If you like to wear a gun in public it's because YOU are frightened and paranoid that your fellow citizens are going to shoot you down. We don't suffer from that problem here because guns are not readily available. Frightened and paranoid people who like to wear guns in public are a danger to me and my family. I see people like you as dangerous to society and people like you should be eradicated.
It's very easy to buy a small handgun here if you don't have a criminal record. Automatic, semi-automatic, and large caliber weapons are almost impossible to buy. This works well because they are the types of weapons that cause massive damage and multiple deaths in little time.
You can quote statistics till the cows come home but they mean little in the real world. If you take into account the rate of population growth and the evolution of a city like Sydney the current stats are not alarming at all. Crimes involving handguns don't necessarily equate to injuries or deaths. Violent crime stats don't just include incidents involving guns. Criminals who would have used higher-powered weapons in the past for robbery or other crimes but now only have access to small handguns would certainly affect the statistics.
Instead of making the problem worse you could better serve society by helping to make it better. Instead you make silly arguments in favour of arming everyone with powerful weapons. Your thinking is backwards and your attitude is anti-social and ultimately evil.
I'm glad that I have no need to carry or own a gun. I happen to be formidable opponent with a plastic bucket and I have a black belt in tricycle. If you come anywhere near me with a gun you'll find yourself lying in the gutter with a bucket over your head and three red stripes across your puny chest.
****ing cowboy.
oohh i think that's a bit harsh Gunn. From what i know of Cue-Ball he seems a decent bloke who just happens to have been brought up in a culture where gun ownership is a normal everyday part of life. And i guess he's just defending that "normality" with a bit of passion and gusto.
Being born and bred in the UK i don't necessarily agree with his point of view, but on the other hand, growing up watching John Wayne movies and running round the streets playing cowboys'un indians as a youngster i can understand this fascination with guns.
Being born and bred in the UK i don't necessarily agree with his point of view, but on the other hand, growing up watching John Wayne movies and running round the streets playing cowboys'un indians as a youngster i can understand this fascination with guns.
Even being "harsh" is unlikely to have any impact on his attitude towards guns. I call it as I see it, no apologies here.
America is a runaway train, I accept that there is no stopping it now, but until people begin to shift their attitudes towards each other it certainly won't be getting any better. A nation living in fear of itself is a time bomb.
Being able to carry a firearms whilst in public is stupid.
Whereas being able to carry firearms in a controlled environment (e.g clay pigeon shooting, game shooting) is a different ball game.
For a start you need a firearms license to own any firearm legally in this country, be it a rifle or a shotgun. Pistol's (I think) have been banned though.
What confuses me though is that you are allowed to purchase an air rifle, a paintball gun... anything that doesn't involve gunpowder or real firepower at the age of 18. These are still weapons and can easily do damage to people (not as much as firearms obviously) but you get the point.
Why other countries are allowed to do WTF they like is a big mystery to me. Just like american police, they are allowed to shoot at will pretty much. English police have an armed squad but they only get used when there is really an armed law breaking, not when young Billy tries to steal some sweets.
Whereas being able to carry firearms in a controlled environment (e.g clay pigeon shooting, game shooting) is a different ball game.
For a start you need a firearms license to own any firearm legally in this country, be it a rifle or a shotgun. Pistol's (I think) have been banned though.
What confuses me though is that you are allowed to purchase an air rifle, a paintball gun... anything that doesn't involve gunpowder or real firepower at the age of 18. These are still weapons and can easily do damage to people (not as much as firearms obviously) but you get the point.
Why other countries are allowed to do WTF they like is a big mystery to me. Just like american police, they are allowed to shoot at will pretty much. English police have an armed squad but they only get used when there is really an armed law breaking, not when young Billy tries to steal some sweets.
Well, you don't see mod with an ironic name ruin a debate everyday do you? That was interesting, I'll give it that. 
Point me to where CB said he was in favour of carrying around an AK47? I must've missed that part. Does it really matter if crazed psycho puts 10 bullets in your head vs just one? Great logic.
I don't sit anywhere specific on this debate really, but calling people ****ing cowboys seems counterproductive at best, so I really don't care what you say in the debate - you've lost credibility.
Point me to where CB said he was in favour of carrying around an AK47? I must've missed that part. Does it really matter if crazed psycho puts 10 bullets in your head vs just one? Great logic.
I don't sit anywhere specific on this debate really, but calling people ****ing cowboys seems counterproductive at best, so I really don't care what you say in the debate - you've lost credibility.
I agree completely, but why be harsh if you know it ain't gonna have any effect other than to get someone riled. I know you say it as you see it, (name me an Aussie that doesn't :razz
But i think America is far far too down the road with respects to gun culture that reverse psychology simply won't work, or simply banning guns outright for that matter. Maybe they need another civil war, but this time a REALLY bad one to clear their minds/get it out of their system and sort out what the American Dream should be, and not whats it's become.
edit, and as BBT said, you've gotta dig the irony of your name Gunn
Anything I can do to stop people from lying in order to propagate interest and acceptance of carrying weapons in public is fine by me. Credibility be dammed. Making up stories about national gun bans and trying to justify their arguments in such a way is only polluting the minds of others. I find such pro-gun propaganda offensive and I'm not afraid to express it.
If you can't see the difference between a simple handgun and an ak-47 then it is you who lacks logic.
Some people think of guns the way you think of cars. Some people have impractical collections and fetishes for both.
What you're proposing is the equivalent of bureaucrats forcing their way into your garage and taking a sledge hammer to your pride and joy, just because it isn't street legal.
Your arguments may have their points and reasons, but be a little more sensitive when you're talking about someone's [possibly] life-long passion for fine, precision machinery.
You're not just saying street racing is dangerous and that kind of driving/machinery should be confined to the racetrack. What you're imprudent to preach is more analogous to: All forms of motorsport are dangerous; all forms of motorsport are wasteful of human life; therefore all racecars serve no useful purpose and should be banned and destroyed. Museum pieces and all. Oh, and that anyone who would drive one is a "****ing danjerous paranoid psycho cowboy who should be eradicated."
Wouldn't it frustrate you just a tad if that were the consensus?
While this post was not entirely directed at Gunn, it amazes me every day that this forum newbie is not only not banned, but maintains moderator status. Go look at his posts. Find something useful or helpful. I wonder how many of his nearly 4000 insults to this community have been self-deleted to try to avoid embarrassment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem for the loss, Gunn.
What you're proposing is the equivalent of bureaucrats forcing their way into your garage and taking a sledge hammer to your pride and joy, just because it isn't street legal.
Your arguments may have their points and reasons, but be a little more sensitive when you're talking about someone's [possibly] life-long passion for fine, precision machinery.
You're not just saying street racing is dangerous and that kind of driving/machinery should be confined to the racetrack. What you're imprudent to preach is more analogous to: All forms of motorsport are dangerous; all forms of motorsport are wasteful of human life; therefore all racecars serve no useful purpose and should be banned and destroyed. Museum pieces and all. Oh, and that anyone who would drive one is a "****ing danjerous paranoid psycho cowboy who should be eradicated."
Wouldn't it frustrate you just a tad if that were the consensus?
While this post was not entirely directed at Gunn, it amazes me every day that this forum newbie is not only not banned, but maintains moderator status. Go look at his posts. Find something useful or helpful. I wonder how many of his nearly 4000 insults to this community have been self-deleted to try to avoid embarrassment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem for the loss, Gunn.
exactly so walking around all the time with a loaded pistol is just as bad
it all reminds me a bit of a movie
Tasty Taste: This is a bazooka, see? And you just pick this up like this. It's-it's-it's-it's kind of heavy. But I figured if I couldn't pick it up, I need to have it.
Nina Blackburn: Why would you need a bazooka?
Tasty Taste: Well, sometimes you gotta take out stuff like a bus or a building, or a *bunch* of muhf***as.
Nina Blackburn: Do you worry that you have a lot of enemies, more than the average guy?
Tasty Taste: So what you tryin' to say? You tryin' to say that I'm, like, paranoid 'n stuff? Do I look like the kind of person that would be paranoid? I mean, when you rollin' with THIS, would *you* be paranoid?
While I'm not exactly a fan of what Gunn just wrote or how it was expressed I totally understand where it's coming from. I often find myself frustrated with some US attitudes, especially those related to the prevalent nationalist supremacy, military action, gun laws & other highly charged topics. I try not to let it get personal though (that's led me into some bitter shitfights on a number of topics at this forum and others). I've found Cuey to be a pretty level-headed & non-inflammatory bloke in this thread and elsewhere at lfsforum.net, penchant for carrying cannons in his y-fronts (and my strong disagreement with such behaviour) notwithstanding.
While I do understand US gun culture and why it exists (while disagreeing with most of the defences for carrying guns around publicly) I accept that changing it will take decades at the very least. Considering the following: that it took one catastrophic 35-death killing spree to change Australia's mind on automatic weapons; that the US has experienced perhaps a dozen spree shootings since Australia banned assault weapons and US gun laws have barely changed at all in response to such crimes; that the US gun lobby holds a ridiculous amount of power as US weapons manufacturers produce over half the world's weapons and have a vested interest in keeping sales up - patriotism over the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding; and that guns and gun culture is so deeply embedded in the US psyche, it will have to take one serious, mind-blowing gun-related atrocity (as if Columbine & the Washington sniper weren't mind-blowing, not to mention the Los Angeles "Heat" bank robbery/shootout) to get Congress to stop pandering to the NRA and the gun lobby to do anything meaningful about restricting weapons ownership, or even just making it harder or impossible to get certain types of weapons. I know that restrictions won't be a (ha) magic bullet, but if one spree can be stopped before it starts or even mitigated because some nutter had to wait for a proper background check - nationally, as well as at state level - or couldn't afford to buy a "black" gun because laws had made obtaining them very, very difficult and therefore very expensive or if someone had to wait until they were at least old enough to drive unsupervised before they could own anything more deadly than a supersoaker, I'd say that was a win for common sense.
While I do understand US gun culture and why it exists (while disagreeing with most of the defences for carrying guns around publicly) I accept that changing it will take decades at the very least. Considering the following: that it took one catastrophic 35-death killing spree to change Australia's mind on automatic weapons; that the US has experienced perhaps a dozen spree shootings since Australia banned assault weapons and US gun laws have barely changed at all in response to such crimes; that the US gun lobby holds a ridiculous amount of power as US weapons manufacturers produce over half the world's weapons and have a vested interest in keeping sales up - patriotism over the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding; and that guns and gun culture is so deeply embedded in the US psyche, it will have to take one serious, mind-blowing gun-related atrocity (as if Columbine & the Washington sniper weren't mind-blowing, not to mention the Los Angeles "Heat" bank robbery/shootout) to get Congress to stop pandering to the NRA and the gun lobby to do anything meaningful about restricting weapons ownership, or even just making it harder or impossible to get certain types of weapons. I know that restrictions won't be a (ha) magic bullet, but if one spree can be stopped before it starts or even mitigated because some nutter had to wait for a proper background check - nationally, as well as at state level - or couldn't afford to buy a "black" gun because laws had made obtaining them very, very difficult and therefore very expensive or if someone had to wait until they were at least old enough to drive unsupervised before they could own anything more deadly than a supersoaker, I'd say that was a win for common sense.
That would be a good post on which to lock this thread.
I think that Cue-Ball is on a losing side from a practical point of view: although I live in no heaven my town is extremely peaceful and the number of murders related to gun violence - a single episode last year - is more or less the same than in Kirkland with roughly the same population, even more, except for the fact that we don't need citizens to carry weapons to achieve that result. To that I'll add the ability to carry a gun isn't a measure of what I perceive as freedom since I'm living in an environment which is almost free from weapons, except for the American nukes in the nearby Aviano base (nobody wants 'em, take them back!) and for guns entering from ex-Yugoslavia (edit: add to that Italian production too, but it's far more controlled).
It would be a long debate (it already is) and for various reasons I'm only occasionally interested to speak my mind: suffice to say that I'm more interested in the topic than in the off-topic, that our Republic is way younger than the US one and was born from disgust and tiredness for certain methods.
Yet I have to say that Gunn's feelings are quite clear to me: paraphrasizing Fugazi, although regrettable if observed under the light of political correctness his words are spiritually direct. As for their usefulness I cannot judge, but Gunn's always been outspoken about what he thinks, no matter the subject and personal costs, and I'll always prefer his straight and open talk to the hypocrisy of the cowards who can't accept criticism.
It would be a long debate (it already is) and for various reasons I'm only occasionally interested to speak my mind: suffice to say that I'm more interested in the topic than in the off-topic, that our Republic is way younger than the US one and was born from disgust and tiredness for certain methods.
Yet I have to say that Gunn's feelings are quite clear to me: paraphrasizing Fugazi, although regrettable if observed under the light of political correctness his words are spiritually direct. As for their usefulness I cannot judge, but Gunn's always been outspoken about what he thinks, no matter the subject and personal costs, and I'll always prefer his straight and open talk to the hypocrisy of the cowards who can't accept criticism.
oh YEAH? You lack logic! Take that! :insane::fence::haha:
Well, there's no reason to be a dick just for the sake of it. In fact, beyond the forum tag there's more irony: His beef is with the mentality he mentions, and yet he can't be constructive in his own words. He so against physical firepower but approaches a perfectly good debate with a proverbial verbal shotgun totally unnecessarily. Criticism of an argument is one thing, in fact Hank, Kev and others have been perfectly capable of doing so very well, and so has CB, all with passion and thought - the fuel for a real debate. Gunn doesn't know CB in real life, and resorting to personal attack, as most people here are well aware is pretty ridiculous. Some people just can't think well enough to present properly without attacking people, and it's a shame.
"You'll notice I ain't said shit fo' 'bout two minutes now."
Guns are for Big Girls Blouses.
And I say that as a cadet marksman.
And I say that as a cadet marksman.
Cue-Ball: It seems somebody found another category of guns we can ban. 
Well said BBT, people like Gunn add nothing to this debate and personally I find people like Gunn much more frightening than CueBall.
In a perfect world we wouldn't ever need a gun, but we don't live in a perfect world. I would rather not live in a nanny state where the government takes everything away that it thinks might potentially cause a problem, because going down that path leads to a state that takes away a lot more than the ability to own a gun.
People keep mentioning these atrocities that were committed with guns and then saying that if only we banned all guns those would never happen. Like I mentioned before, if the world was perfect and banning guns meant *poof* all guns are now gone that would work, but people who want to will still be able to get guns even if you outlaw them. To say that banning all guns might save some lives from one instance is not enough to justify the action, you could also save a hell of a lot of lives by making all speed limits 30MPH or banning public sale of cigarettes, but I don't see these same people advocating those things. Why not, you want to see people die in car accidents?
The likely response is that the greater good is served by allowing those things to exist even with the associated negative consequences, isn't it possible that a certain amount of gun ownership can operate along those same lines?
In a perfect world we wouldn't ever need a gun, but we don't live in a perfect world. I would rather not live in a nanny state where the government takes everything away that it thinks might potentially cause a problem, because going down that path leads to a state that takes away a lot more than the ability to own a gun.
People keep mentioning these atrocities that were committed with guns and then saying that if only we banned all guns those would never happen. Like I mentioned before, if the world was perfect and banning guns meant *poof* all guns are now gone that would work, but people who want to will still be able to get guns even if you outlaw them. To say that banning all guns might save some lives from one instance is not enough to justify the action, you could also save a hell of a lot of lives by making all speed limits 30MPH or banning public sale of cigarettes, but I don't see these same people advocating those things. Why not, you want to see people die in car accidents?
The likely response is that the greater good is served by allowing those things to exist even with the associated negative consequences, isn't it possible that a certain amount of gun ownership can operate along those same lines?
Well that's leveling out an argument rather crudely IMO. Making it harder or impossible for people to acquire the specialized means to cause damage is hardly a nanny state. There is no other use for a gun but to cause damage - be it on purpose, by accident, on an animal, on a human (either a criminal or an "innocent").
But you are right in a way - currently the society in the US appears to be problematic at the core and requires much more fundamental changes than just banning this or banning that. Sadly what problems exist there eventually get transferred, via trends, imitation and what are termed as mediums of globalisation (TV and the internet mostly), over to the whole of "western culture".
As I see it the pattern goes sort of like this:
When a trend emerges in the US it follows a course
a. automatically absorbed by the english speaking world - and in Europe that would be the UK
b. sort of bastardized at the first stage of absorption and then passed on to other non-english speaking countries
c. bastardized a tiny bit more in those countries and scorned perhaps a bit, but eventually adopted in full and add some
When it hits Japan the effect is amazing - japanese appear to crave all stuff western so bad that they'll absorb it in any way they understood it and then amplify it times ten and (most interestingly) spit it back at the US which in turn sends it off to the rest of the western world and the loop goes on.
What is worse is that this runs a course in the younger generations mostly. The trends seen in educational problems, moral issues and what is passed as "the norm" are quite apparent (and often hilarious or just plain sad - depending on your level of cynicism).
Now to get back to the "need for guns". As I see it it is clearly a cultural phenomenon - easy to figure out in a sense if you read american history. Do I agree with it? No. But I am judging it from my perspective and my standards, living in a different (for the time being - but rapidly starting to emulate "the global norm" more and more) country. Mind you, I don't agree with the amount of guns going around my country and especially around the island here either - but atleast we haven't had any spectacular nutcase incidents yet.
As I see it - the fact is that whatever problems the US gets it is just a matter of time until we get them too. It might be that that the rest of the world doesn't consider guns as a "right" at the moment, and I doubt it will any time soon, but the underlying culture of violence that springs forth such a need for guns has been planted a long time like a seed. All it needs is to be watered with a little more ignorance.
Ban Americans from breeding, and in about 50 years, voila, no more problem.
Amoebas don't breed.
Harsh - but it was open :P
You're my hero Tristan.
This thread took a turn didnt it!
Just speaking for myself, I'm no advocate of banning everything in an attempt to end crime. I actually said (somewhere in my last enormous post) that it was stupid to think that a gun ban would end gun crime. What I tried to make perfectly clear, however, was that restrictions or a ban on certain types of weapon - specifically assault rifles and other self-loading, automatic or military-style weapons - helps to lessen the impact if someone does decide to go on a killing spree. Of course it's not necessary to have an assault rifle to kill people. After all, you only need one bullet to kill someone, and just one murdered kid on the street is one too many. But if you're in posession of a weapon that can spray 30+ bullets into a crowd in a few seconds and you lose your mind, the damage you cause and its ripple effects will be felt by a much larger number of people than if you were unable to acquire such a weapon.
Crims in this country simply don't bother with military guns anymore. Any halfwit can hold up a 7/11 or a bank with a sawnoff shotty from dad's farm or a pistol (real or fake) and anyone with half a brain will do whatever you want if you stick a gun in their face, so why bother trying to get an M16 on the black market? It's not worth the trouble. It's hard enough keeping the state cops off your trail if you just held up a service station for $500, but if you did it with an assault rifle you'll attract Federal attention and you'll be all over the front page before you know it.
Politics + America = Off Topic flame war.
Sad but thats what happens.Did anyone even notice that Hilary pulled off a shock win in New Hampshire?
2008 candadints!
(273 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG