It always baffles me when the police aren't called in cases like this. I mean, were they? They should have been. And stabs-mc-killity should have been dealt with.
Was the stabbed student okay?
What the hell happened to the good old days when disputes were settled with punches and kicks.
I live in a small town but there has been more instances of weapons drawn on teachers and bus drivers in the past 2 years than their was the 8 years I was in JR and Sr high (that was from 87-94).
Egads. The real tough guys can bully with fists, only pussies need to draw knives or guns.
Change schools if it's an option, otherwise keep your head down. (keeping head down includes not performing acts of violence or satanic rituals, contrary to the advice of a large proportion of Dakkazens)
My buddies go to school where they have had 3 stabbings and two beatings with pipes already, and last year a lady stabbed a kid in the neck and killed him because he was bullying her kid.
Fateweaver wrote:What the hell happened to the good old days when disputes were settled with punches and kicks.
I live in a small town but there has been more instances of weapons drawn on teachers and bus drivers in the past 2 years than their was the 8 years I was in JR and Sr high (that was from 87-94).
Egads. The real tough guys can bully with fists, only pussies need to draw knives or guns.
Disputes between youths used to be solved by knives. That hasn't really changed much.
Unless you have reason to think you're going to be stabbed you're probably ok.
ShumaGorath wrote:Disputes between youths used to be solved by knives. That hasn't really changed much.
Hmm, I don't recall my older sibling or cousins ever having to knife someone to settle a dispute. My parents certainly didn't. Their method of choice was a sound pummeling. Knife fights, as in West Side Story, were the exception, not the rule. Or are you just arguing because you can?
My wieners settle their disputes West Side Story knife fight style. Its almost like watching a Broadway fight, except for the whining, their really really godawful breath, and general insistence that the winner gets in my lap.
ShumaGorath wrote:Disputes between youths used to be solved by knives. That hasn't really changed much.
Hmm, I don't recall my older sibling or cousins ever having to knife someone to settle a dispute. My parents certainly didn't. Their method of choice was a sound pummeling. Knife fights, as in West Side Story, were the exception, not the rule. Or are you just arguing because you can?
Rates of youth violence haven't really risen at all, the lethality in some areas have increased slightly because of the introduction of firearms, but this is hardly an increasing trend anymore. It kind of peaked in the late 80's and early 90's. I honestly doubt theres been any sort of increase over the last century beyond short bursts of area or trend related violence (such as ethnic tensions or gang related issues).
Well yes Frazzled, I expected as much from you. No one ever accused you of leading a normal, stable lifestyle. I mean, the loss of Attila to a nosebleed must have been quite a shock to you...
ShumaGorath wrote:Rates of youth violence haven't really risen at all, the lethality in some areas have increased slightly because of the introduction of firearms, but this is hardly an increasing trend anymore. It kind of peaked in the late 80's and early 90's. I honestly doubt theres been any sort of increase over the last century beyond short bursts of area or trend related violence (such as ethnic tensions or gang related issues).
Stats appreciated. That aside, how does this do anything to prove that knife fights were more common, or prevalent? You can just as easily beat someone to death with a club, or your fists, as knife them...
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well yes Frazzled, I expected as much from you. No one ever accused you of leading a normal, stable lifestyle. I mean, the loss of Attila to a nosebleed must have been quite a shock to you...
Ayah I was inconsolable for 5, maybe 10 minutes. But I moved on.
Fateweaver wrote:Egads. The real tough guys can bully with fists, only pussies need to draw knives or guns.
When one kid is 6' 2" and 200lbs and the other is 5'5" and 120 the bigger kid might as well have a knife or a gun. The smaller kid is just leveling the playing field.
ShumaGorath wrote:Rates of youth violence haven't really risen at all, the lethality in some areas have increased slightly because of the introduction of firearms, but this is hardly an increasing trend anymore. It kind of peaked in the late 80's and early 90's. I honestly doubt theres been any sort of increase over the last century beyond short bursts of area or trend related violence (such as ethnic tensions or gang related issues).
Stats appreciated. That aside, how does this do anything to prove that knife fights were more common, or prevalent? You can just as easily beat someone to death with a club, or your fists, as knife them...
My information is primarily anecdotal before they began really actively tracking the numbers. Throughout history we've been a violent species, and what did we have before? Segregation? The depression? Urban street gangs? Familial or clan rivalries? To think that it's been getting somehow "worse" is silly, especially given the obvious prevalence of deadly weapons in the hands of children in years gone by. It wasn't so long ago that a kid without a knife was an odd thing to see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Rates of youth violence haven't really risen at all, the lethality in some areas have increased slightly because of the introduction of firearms, but this is hardly an increasing trend anymore. It kind of peaked in the late 80's and early 90's. I honestly doubt theres been any sort of increase over the last century beyond short bursts of area or trend related violence (such as ethnic tensions or gang related issues).
Stats appreciated. That aside, how does this do anything to prove that knife fights were more common, or prevalent? You can just as easily beat someone to death with a club, or your fists, as knife them...
My information is primarily anecdotal before they began really actively tracking the numbers. Throughout history we've been a violent species, and what did we have before? Segregation? The depression? Urban street gangs? Familial or clan rivalries? To think that it's been getting somehow "worse" is silly, especially given the obvious prevalence of deadly weapons in the hands of children in years gone by. It wasn't so long ago that a kid without a knife was an odd thing to see.
Given the nationality flag in the OPs post though, I could be entirely wrong.
You can leave your school, your country, and your continent, but if you plan on joining civilization, you're always gonna run into donkey-caves that would rather cut you than look at you.
Surround yourself with people who have alot to lose. Those are the ones least likely to act outside of social norms. Hood rats have nothing to live for, so they will die for anything.
I don't know what to make of all this... just one more reason I don't think I would like to raise kids. As to the satanists... man, I'm as confused as you are.
In all seriousness, this is so fething annoying. After that first fatal stabbing in an Australian school, it seems to happen every two days now.
I live in the West Australian town Roleystone. Roleystone has a reputation for being a home for some pretty bad people. There is also a large amount of youth deaths due to car crashes in this area. Yet despite this reputation, never has anyone been attacked or threatened to this extent in our two schools, or at least, not in my time. In fact, it makes me ashamed to be part of the same race as that guy.
Bust the first Punk @ss to mess with you in the head with a lunch tray. You'll get sent to a new sschool instantly. They let bad kids get away with hell but when a good kid does it, bye bye. When you get to the next school you'll already be known as the crazy lunch tray kid, and nobody will mess with you.
In fact, it makes me ashamed to be part of the same race as that guy.
Remember race and charater don't go and in hand. or we'd all be Al sharptons and Glenn Becks.
IvanTih wrote:I hate when unarmed people are killed by someone armed.I would never kill an unarmed person with a weapon.
Much safer to kill them while they're unarmed, preferably while they're back is turned, unconscious if at all possible.
And tied up if at all possible.
I don't get it. The Year 12's (me included) are fairly tightly knit. Apart from a bit of boasting and pay-outs, there's not been anything serious especially no one bringing knives into school or crap like that. (Granted there are only about 30 of us...)
@OP: How do you know they got loads of their friends to stand outside the school with knives and guns? How do you know they were doing this because of the headmaster's inability to deal with bullying? Are you making this up?
OoieGoie wrote:Iv always wondered why people with guns and knives even bother go to school?
So I could get an education and a good job...
Don't be brainwashed to think that having guns and knives makes you ignorant, crazy, violent, outdated, or unable to be a productive member of society.
Stan Lee got it right... "With great power comes great responsibility."
OoieGoie wrote:Iv always wondered why people with guns and knives even bother go to school?
So I could get an education and a good job...
Don't be brainwashed to think that having guns and knives makes you ignorant, crazy, violent, outdated, or unable to be a productive member of society.
Stan Lee got it right... "With great power comes great responsibility."
Doesn't spiderman routinely fight supervillains that espouse the exact opposite philosophy?
There was a resent article in the good old South Africa a while a go, that showed that on average 3 kids (age 3-15) are killed each week!!! And thats only in the Western Cape!
ricekake87 wrote:There was a resent article in the good old South Africa a while a go, that showed that on average 3 kids (age 3-15) are killed each week!!! And thats only in the Western Cape!
Nuke it from orbit. That's the only way to be sure.
Seriously though, if you wanna survive, bring a knife too. Its realism, baby. Security means fething everyone else over for your safety. First. Last. Always.
I sleep with a pistol under my pillow, a shotgun within arms reach, and an assault rifle in the closet. That how it works in my America.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:How do you feth up cutting someone throat?
Seriously though, if you wanna survive, bring a knife too. Its realism, baby. Security means fething everyone else over for your safety. First. Last. Always.
I sleep with a pistol under my pillow, a shotgun within arms reach, and an assault rifle in the closet. That how it works in my America.
Funny how all I've got is a razor on my keys and I'll probably live longer. When you surround yourself with violence it intrinsically becomes part of your life.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:How do you feth up cutting someone throat?
Seriously though, if you wanna survive, bring a knife too. Its realism, baby. Security means fething everyone else over for your safety. First. Last. Always.
I sleep with a pistol under my pillow, a shotgun within arms reach, and an assault rifle in the closet. That how it works in my America.
Funny how all I've got is a razor on my keys and I'll probably live longer.
Your probably right. Paranoia, alcoholism, and firearms dont mix well at all. Be careful with that razor though, I know you wouldn't want to hurt anyones feelings by defending yourself during a mugging.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:How do you feth up cutting someone throat?
Seriously though, if you wanna survive, bring a knife too. Its realism, baby. Security means fething everyone else over for your safety. First. Last. Always.
I sleep with a pistol under my pillow, a shotgun within arms reach, and an assault rifle in the closet. That how it works in my America.
Funny how all I've got is a razor on my keys and I'll probably live longer.
Your probably right. Paranoia, alcoholism, and firearms dont mix well at all. Be careful with that razor though, I know you wouldn't want to hurt anyones feelings by defending yourself during a mugging.
It's a 3 inch straight razor. Pretty dull and rusty at this point. I found it on the ground years ago. Somehow though, I think it'll be more handy in a mugging then all the guns you left at home.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:What they dont know wont get me killed when some donkey-cave tries to kill me.
Certainly not, but it could certainly get you in a heap of trouble if they searched you for whatever reason they might have. You keep it in your car or are you just always packing when your in class? Not to be rude, but that would creep me the feth out if I was your classmate and I knew.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:What they dont know wont get me killed when some donkey-cave tries to kill me.
Certainly not, but it could certainly get you in a heap of trouble if they searched you for whatever reason they might have. You keep it in your car or are you just always packing when your in class? Not to be rude, but that would creep me the feth out if I was your classmate and I knew.
I would be guilty of a felony if they caught me. I dont wave it around or anything, I would just prefer to live if anything ever goes down. It wouldnt creep you out if we knew each other in person, I am rather likable. Just ask me
IvanTih wrote:I hate when unarmed people are killed by someone armed.I would never kill an unarmed person with a weapon.
Much safer to kill them while they're unarmed, preferably while they're back is turned, unconscious if at all possible.
And tied up if at all possible.
I don't get it. The Year 12's (me included) are fairly tightly knit. Apart from a bit of boasting and pay-outs, there's not been anything serious especially no one bringing knives into school or crap like that. (Granted there are only about 30 of us...)
I find it cowardly to kill someone unarmed with a weapon and EF do you mean 30 in class or in the school.
Only 30 of us in Year 12. And there were only 14 the year before. It's a fairly new school.
Having never been in the posistion where taking the life of another human being ever seemed like an option I hope you realise I was joking IvanTih. That said, better to err on the side of caution...
Emperors Faithful wrote:Only 30 of us in Year 12. And there were only 14 the year before. It's a fairly new school.
Having never been in the posistion where taking the life of another human being ever seemed like an option I hope you realise I was joking IvanTih. That said, better to err on the side of caution...
Its a gun culture here though, I was raised knowing how to use and carry one. I can guarantee Im quite safe when dealing with them.
"It's a gun culture" isn't particularly accurate. You were raised in an environment that by the sound of it was vastly more laden with firearms than the average U.S. citizen, to the point where you repeatedly commit felonies daily because of it.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Yeh, that about sums it up.
You should probably stop committing felonies every day to assuage your ego about self protection. You're vastly more likely to be caught, fined, and thrown out of school then you are to be some sort of "hero" in a school shooting.
It certainly isnt about being a hero lol. Nor is it about ego boosting. People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling and Ive got gak to live for. And around here, if I dont have some kind of weapon, other people do, so Im not going to handicap myself.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It certainly isnt about being a hero lol. Nor is it about ego boosting. People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling and Ive got gak to live for. And around here, if I dont have some kind of weapon, other people do, so Im not going to handicap myself.
Maybe you should consider moving to a more friendly state.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:It certainly isnt about being a hero lol. Nor is it about ego boosting. People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling and Ive got gak to live for. And around here, if I dont have some kind of weapon, other people do, so Im not going to handicap myself.
What do you attend school in the battledome or something?
No, I go to school in the mountains of Georgia. Where Deliverance was filmed. I hope this sheds some light on my situation. I lived in Hawaii for a while, that was nice, but I dont know enough MMA not to get my ass beat.
J.Black wrote:Wow, you go to school somewhere near where a film was made?! You must be hard as nails! Nevermind the fact that 'Films aren't real'.
seriously, get out of your basement and try to present an attitude that isn't based off Chuck Norris films. You may get somewhere in life.
You can learn a lot from Chuck Norris. For instance, a homeless Chuck Norris (we're talking hypothetically, as the actual thing existing would cause the universe to implode) could teach you how to earn a proper living, as shown below:
J.Black wrote:Wow, you go to school somewhere near where a film was made?! You must be hard as nails! Nevermind the fact that 'Films aren't real'.
seriously, get out of your basement and try to present an attitude that isn't based off Chuck Norris films. You may get somewhere in life.
Wow, way to attack someone exercising rights granted to him/her by our Constitution.
I'm sure most of it is a grab at trying to get a laugh at people with too much starch in their shirts.
He is taking a chance having a knife on him in school but that doesn't make him some psycho or trigger happy nutjob.
I have a .45 as well I keep within reach and a 12 gauge I keep in the gun safe 5 feet from my bed if I need it. Not everyone has the option of leaving their location for a "safer" area.
Carrying a piece doesn't automatically invite violence. In fact it's just the opposite. If more people, women especially, carried guns on them there would probably be a lot less rapes. Not every rapist does so at gun or knife point. Most won't use a weapon to instigate believing that sheer fright and muscle power alone can subdue their victim.
So why not get off your throne your Highness and quit acting you are better than someone who you deem "barbaric?
ShumaGorath wrote:When you surround yourself with violence it intrinsically becomes part of your life.
+1 for this. Violence begets violence. Thats why the police in England don't carry guns.
Firearms are not for carrying around everyday. Just because the constitution says you can, doesn't mean you should. It was drawn up in another age, where there was a very real risk of being invaded, and America didn't have an effective standing army. By all means, be a fan of shooting events- but carrying a .45 around everyday has no advantage other than escalating any incident that might happen to you.
@OP I suggest moving schools or trying to avoid going near those people.
It makes me sad that if you compare the schools in last decade with this one; the schools today are nothing but more of a threat to kids these days than walking around the street. School massacres, Gang turf wars etc. Hearing things like this makes everything seem so bleak these days
ShumaGorath wrote:When you surround yourself with violence it intrinsically becomes part of your life.
+1 for this. Violence begets violence. Thats why the police in England don't carry guns.
Firearms are not for carrying around everyday. Just because the constitution says you can, doesn't mean you should. It was drawn up in another age, where there was a very real risk of being invaded, and America didn't have an effective standing army. By all means, be a fan of shooting events- but carrying a .45 around everyday has no advantage other than escalating any incident that might happen to you.
Thank God I live in a country where I can walk into any place that isn't a Federal building, a bar/nightclub or shopping mall strapped with a .45 at my side.
Just because someone robs you or carjacks you and MIGHT let you live doesn't mean they always will. If someone intends to carjack me or rob me and then shoot me later I intend to at least go down shooting. Sure I can't know ahead of time if someone is going to kill me after stealing my wallet but neither can anti-gun people claim that he/she would just let me walk away either.
[Thank God I live in a country where I can walk into any place that isn't a Federal building, a bar/nightclub or shopping mall strapped with a .45 at my side.
You're thanking god for the freedom to carry around a device designed to commit a cardinal sin for which you become eternally damned to hell. That doesn't seem a bit ironic to you?
[Thank God I live in a country where I can walk into any place that isn't a Federal building, a bar/nightclub or shopping mall strapped with a .45 at my side.
You're thanking god for the freedom to carry around a device designed to commit a cardinal sin for which you become eternally damned to hell. That doesn't seem a bit ironic to you?
Very ironic indeed,diates aside however,Fate is within his legal rights to carry his firearm (for his own sense of protection).
A bit OT for the OT,but I myself am quite baffled as to why you two even bother to respond to one another,I'd say the chances of either of you ever seeing the others "point" are about equal to my chances of winning the Miss nude Mexico pagent.
[A bit OT for the OT,but I myself am quite baffled as to why you two even bother to respond to one another,I'd say the chances of either of you ever seeing the others "point" are about equal to my chances of winning the Miss nude Mexico pagent.
I like to inform people that the things they say don't make sense when the things they say don't make sense.
[Thank God I live in a country where I can walk into any place that isn't a Federal building, a bar/nightclub or shopping mall strapped with a .45 at my side.
You're thanking god for the freedom to carry around a device designed to commit a cardinal sin for which you become eternally damned to hell. That doesn't seem a bit ironic to you?
Very ironic indeed,diates aside however,Fate is within his legal rights to carry his firearm (for his own sense of protection).
A bit OT for the OT,but I myself am quite baffled as to why you two even bother to respond to one another,I'd say the chances of either of you ever seeing the others "point" are about equal to my chances of winning the Miss nude Mexico pagent.
You cant argue with people who like or dislike guns. Its something that your born with. I dont expect him to ever understand why I do it, and I dont ever expect to understand why I shouldn't.
ShumaGorath wrote:
[Thank God I live in a country where I can walk into any place that isn't a Federal building, a bar/nightclub or shopping mall strapped with a .45 at my side.
You're thanking god for the freedom to carry around a device designed to commit a cardinal sin for which you become eternally damned to hell. That doesn't seem a bit ironic to you?
There is certainly alot of irony in your post.
CadianXV wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:When you surround yourself with violence it intrinsically becomes part of your life.
+1 for this. Violence begets violence. Thats why the police in England don't carry guns.
Firearms are not for carrying around everyday. Just because the constitution says you can, doesn't mean you should. It was drawn up in another age, where there was a very real risk of being invaded, and America didn't have an effective standing army. By all means, be a fan of shooting events- but carrying a .45 around everyday has no advantage other than escalating any incident that might happen to you.
Or preventing an incident. You dont understand, and you never will. I am a responsible individual capable of using appropriate judgment. I dont roll up into buildings like a Mexican Bandit, with bandoliers across my chest and six shooters raised high. Nor does anyone who carries a weapon, as you have to know the appropriate laws and procedures for carrying a concealed weapon before you can even use it. Your progressive social thinking isn't how I view the world, nor will it ever be. I am here for myself and my family, and I am to protect both. Will I have to protect them in the mall or at a restaurant, probably not, but thats little consolation for these people. That happened about two hours from where I live.
J.Black wrote:Wow, you go to school somewhere near where a film was made?! You must be hard as nails! Nevermind the fact that 'Films aren't real'.
seriously, get out of your basement and try to present an attitude that isn't based off Chuck Norris films. You may get somewhere in life.
I am happy that you live in a place free of danger. You should thank a soldier or a cop.
You cant argue with people who like or dislike guns. Its something that your born with. I dont expect him to ever understand why I do it, and I dont ever expect to understand why I shouldn't.
I love the hell out of guns, half of my wallpapers are related military or gun items. I'm just not 12 anymore and I understand what the place of guns are in a modern society.
There is certainly alot of irony in your post.
I eat a lot of corn flakes.
Or preventing an incident. You dont understand, and you never will. I am a responsible individual capable of using appropriate judgment. I dont roll up into buildings like a Mexican Bandit, with bandoliers across my chest and six shooters raised high. Nor does anyone who carries a weapon, as you have to know the appropriate laws and procedures for carrying a concealed weapon before you can even use it
While I have no doubt about your capability and judgement assuming everyone that carries a weapon is aware of, cares about, or respects the laws or procedures for carrying a concealed one is foolish. Someone with a concealed carry license is certainly much more likely to be responsible, but not everyone that carries concealed has the right to do so. And when they are bringing lethal weapons onto campus' it doesn't speak well of judgement.
I am happy that you live in a place free of danger. You should thank a soldier or a cop.
Cops yes. Realistically we haven't had a defensive war, or even a universally praised war since world war two. I will thank a soldier for being willing and able to defend us when needed, but I would rather thank the cop twice for actually protecting me.
@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.
What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.
I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.
I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.
You cant argue with people who like or dislike guns. Its something that your born with. I dont expect him to ever understand why I do it, and I dont ever expect to understand why I shouldn't.
I love the hell out of guns, half of my wallpapers are related military or gun items. I'm just not 12 anymore and I understand what the place of guns are in a modern society.
There is certainly alot of irony in your post.
I eat a lot of corn flakes.
Or preventing an incident. You dont understand, and you never will. I am a responsible individual capable of using appropriate judgment. I dont roll up into buildings like a Mexican Bandit, with bandoliers across my chest and six shooters raised high. Nor does anyone who carries a weapon, as you have to know the appropriate laws and procedures for carrying a concealed weapon before you can even use it
While I have no doubt about your capability and judgement assuming everyone that carries a weapon is aware of, cares about, or respects the laws or procedures for carrying a concealed one is foolish. Someone with a concealed carry license is certainly much more likely to be responsible, but not everyone that carries concealed has the right to do so. And when they are bringing lethal weapons onto campus' it doesn't speak well of judgement.
I am happy that you live in a place free of danger. You should thank a soldier or a cop.
Cops yes. Realistically we haven't had a defensive war, or even a universally praised war since world war two. I will thank a soldier for being willing and able to defend us when needed, but I would rather thank the cop twice for actually protecting me.
Yes because 12yo's glorify carrying guns around. Responsible adults conceal them and don't brandish them around (conceal being a loose term as the holster itself doesn't have to be concealed, just that the gun has to be holstered and not in your hand or your waistband of your pants.
Everyone who carries concealed (at least has the proper permits) has the right do so. There are quite a lot of stipulations in the CC permit process. Look at the app sometime. It's not like applying for a loan or credit card. Have a history of mental illness? No permit for you. Have a felony on your record? No permit for you. Have a OoP against you? No permit for you. Hell, those 3 even prevent you from getting the permit to legally buy and you have to be able to legally buy to be able to legally carry. There is no way around that. The nutjobs shooting up schools and malls aren't carrying or buying their guns legally (with the exception of the Vtech students) so isolated incidents do happen but it's not as if every criminal takes the time to make sure he's "legal" first.
Has a cop actually come to your aid when some psycho with a gun or knife wanted to kill you? If so than I'm glad he got there in time. If not then don't be so quick to thank cops who haven't defended you anymore than a soldier has.
Has a cop actually come to your aid when some psycho with a gun or knife wanted to kill you? If so than I'm glad he got there in time. If not then don't be so quick to thank cops who haven't defended you anymore than a soldier has.
The difference being its the cops job, not the soldiers. I could just as well thank a plumber for the same thing since it hasn't actually happened. That doesn't mean it makes sense.
Soldiers job IS to defend our country, even the reserves train in the use of firearms so that if they get called upon to aid the regular Army/Navy/Marines/AF they know how to do it.
If you don't think it's the job of the military to defend us and our country than what the hell you think they exist for? Just to get paid?
Fateweaver wrote:Soldiers job IS to defend our country, even the reserves train in the use of firearms so that if they get called upon to aid the regular Army/Navy/Marines/AF they know how to do it.
If you don't think it's the job of the military to defend us and our country than what the hell you think they exist for? Just to get paid?
They don't get paid to enforce law, they get paid to follow military orders. The dude trying to stab me, unless it's occurring on foreign soil and the dudes somehow classified as a foreign combatant, is a law enforcement matter. The soldier doesn't have the training to handle the situation, his forte is to kill and capture, not to apprehend or enforce the law. Cops go through more training than soldiers (depending on the branch of law enforcement).
I lived next to a sizable naval air station for 20 years, it wasn't the soldiers that were driving around with the cars that had flashy lights.
CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.
What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.
I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.
I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.
While I can agree on some points (it would be a much better world if firearms didn't exist and we could kill each other with swords in a civilized fasion ),the simple fact is the world exist as it does and disarming citizens is not the answer to ending "gun crimes" or violent crime.
I'm also just a tad unclear on how "owning a gun to defend my family creates a worse environment."
CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.
What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.
I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.
I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.
While I can agree on some points (it would be a much better world if firearms didn't exist and we could kill each other with swords in a civilized fasion ),the simple fact is the world exist as it does and disarming citizens is not the answer to ending "gun crimes" or violent crime.
I'm also just a tad unclear on how "owning a gun to defend my family creates a worse environment."
Well it propagates a civilian sale industry the existence of which aids the black market. The real truth of the matter is that taking guns from civilians wouldn't prevent gun crime, but it would in the long term aid in its reduction by the simple fact that it is easier to track and enforce the illegal sale of an item that has no legal channels for distribution. It's far from a silver bullet, it's just one part of a much larger change that would have to occur shifting this from a culture that adores and worships violence to one that is sickened by it.
Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.
CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.
What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.
I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.
I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.
While I can agree on some points (it would be a much better world if firearms didn't exist and we could kill each other with swords in a civilized fasion ),the simple fact is the world exist as it does and disarming citizens is not the answer to ending "gun crimes" or violent crime.
I'm also just a tad unclear on how "owning a gun to defend my family creates a worse environment."
Well it propagates a civilian sale industry the existence of which aids the black market. The real truth of the matter is that taking guns from civilians wouldn't prevent gun crime, but it would in the long term aid in its reduction by the simple fact that it is easier to track and enforce the illegal sale of an item that has no legal channels for distribution. It's far from a silver bullet, it's just one part of a much larger change that would have to occur shifting this from a culture that adores and worships violence to one that is sickened by it.
It's also a pipe dream.
I see what your getting at Shuma,but as you said...it's a pipe dream.
Not only for reasons you cited,but also (alow me to doff my foil hat)...the concept of a heavily armed government and a totally disarmend population concerns me just a bit.
CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.
What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.
I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.
I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.
While I can agree on some points (it would be a much better world if firearms didn't exist and we could kill each other with swords in a civilized fasion ),the simple fact is the world exist as it does and disarming citizens is not the answer to ending "gun crimes" or violent crime.
I'm also just a tad unclear on how "owning a gun to defend my family creates a worse environment."
Well it propagates a civilian sale industry the existence of which aids the black market. The real truth of the matter is that taking guns from civilians wouldn't prevent gun crime, but it would in the long term aid in its reduction by the simple fact that it is easier to track and enforce the illegal sale of an item that has no legal channels for distribution. It's far from a silver bullet, it's just one part of a much larger change that would have to occur shifting this from a culture that adores and worships violence to one that is sickened by it.
It's also a pipe dream.
Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.
Ratbarf wrote:Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.
They don't have cultures that worship violence as we do. They're also a tiny country with less than a 40th our population.
Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.
Thats got nothing to do with what I said.
I see what your getting at Shuma,but as you said...it's a pipe dream. Not only for reasons you cited,but also (alow me to doff my foil hat)...the concept of a heavily armed government and a totally disarmend population concerns me just a bit.
I don't see why. It's not like your nine is going to be bringing down an abrahms anyway. If the military was a cohesive body that was capable of acting against the broad civilian population of america (such as most military juntas are) then the american populaces little pea shooters wouldn't mean a damn thing. Your militia would just get hit by a hellfire fired from a drone piloted from the safe interior of a military base or carrier.
Ratbarf wrote:Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.
They don't have cultures that worship violence as we do. They're also a tiny country with less than a 40th our population.
Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.
Thats got nothing to do with what I said.
Not saying it does but I'm just jumping the gun because if this thread keeps on someone will say that.
Ratbarf wrote:Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.
They don't have cultures that worship violence as we do. They're also a tiny country with less than a 40th our population.
Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.
Thats got nothing to do with what I said.
Not saying it does but I'm just jumping the gun because if this thread keeps on someone will say that.
You know it as well as I do Shuma.
Yes.
Someone like you.
When you said it.
Unprompted.
Just now.
To make fun of liberals.
Ratbarf wrote:Last I checked Switzerland has an Assault rifle in every home, and most nordic countries, ( I think) have mandatory military training. Yet they do not have a high level of gun crime.
They don't have cultures that worship violence as we do. They're also a tiny country with less than a 40th our population.
Or if leftists are to be believed taking guns away from US citizens would stop them from going into Mexican drug cartels.
Thats got nothing to do with what I said.
Not saying it does but I'm just jumping the gun because if this thread keeps on someone will say that.
You know it as well as I do Shuma.
Yes.
Someone like you.
When you said it.
Unprompted.
Just now.
To make fun of liberals.
Did I strike a nerve Shuma. I'm sure it's not JUST the liberals. I'm sure there are some moderates that feel that way too.
As I recall it was one of my well known nemesis' that constantly posts about the US being to blame for guns going into Mexico and how it would stop if we lost our 2nd Amendment Rights.
Anyway. It's a pretty craptacular school for that gak to go on. Glad I never felt the need to bring a weapon into school when I was in HS (fights were settled with fists, not .45's and machetes).
CadianXV wrote:@Marshall2Crusaders: I have no doubt that you are a well balanced, responsible individual, well capable of wielding a legal weapon in a safe way. I will not challenge your ability, nor your right to carry such a weapon.
What I will challenge however is gun culture as a whole. My progressive social thinking leads me to believe that in a society where firearms are relatively commonplace, then incidents such as the Penske shootings will also become relatively commonplace, or at the least more so than in a society where the majority of people do not carry firearms.
I can see your argument of wanting to defend your family- I want to defend my loved ones as well, however whilst owning a firearm is one way of doing this, my opinion is that by doing so, you create a worse environment for your family, because others will be forced to resort to carrying a lethal weapon to defend their families.
I am obviously aware that you did not start this trend, but I lament the fact that it exists regardless.
I like this post. He has revealed the real problems with a gun culture. Its all about escalation. If I have a gun, my neighbor gets a gun to feel secure. His neighbor buys one, and his neighbor buys one. I can see how it can appear like it can spiral out of control relatively quickly.
The main problem is, with anything in the US, if the culture of the US preached responsibility in schools (which we dont), we would not be having this problem. If every child was brought up being taught that personal responsibility is the duty of every citizen, we would see less crime and the need for firearms would decrease. The public school system in the US sucks, horribly. The younger you instill values in someone, the longer they stick with them. If 19-20 is the first time someone is taught responsible gun handling skills, there is a problem in the system.
I dont mean religious or values, I mean social values. How to interact with other people and the system.
I see what your getting at Shuma,but as you said...it's a pipe dream.
Not only for reasons you cited,but also (alow me to doff my foil hat)...the concept of a heavily armed government and a totally disarmend population concerns me just a bit.
I don't see why. It's not like your nine is going to be bringing down an abrahms anyway. If the military was a cohesive body that was capable of acting against the broad civilian population of america (such as most military juntas are) then the american populaces little pea shooters wouldn't mean a damn thing. Your militia would just get hit by a hellfire fired from a drone piloted from the safe interior of a military base or carrier.
Once again when your right your right Shuma...and I agree with you,my 9mm nor my .45 or even my 12 guage could do much of sqaut,but knowing I have the right to own them,well it helps me sleep a bit better...perhaps I am labouring under yet another illusion of safety/freedom.
Yeah, a lot of people have this belief that the military would just do as ordered even if it meant turning guns and tanks on it's own citizens.
Sure there'd be some, maybe even half would do it but in all likelihood the ones ordering the military to start shooting US citizens would be the ones getting fired upon by those they are ordering to do it.
I hope to never have to kill or hurt anyone to defend myself but I do sleep better at night knowing that the powers that be granted me the legal right to do so. It's like having house or car insurance. You may never need it (God willing) but it's there if you ever do.
Part of being a soldier is recognizing that the citizens of the United States are who you serve. That is the point of being a professional soldier. Regardless of how some soldiers act, the true master of the Military is the People and their Constitution. Few soldiers would be willing to attack New York or something because the citizens are protesting the government.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:There wont come a day when the UA military would ever attack the US population, without a large portion of the US military refusing to do it.
Pretty much, it's an incredibly unrealistic scenario. Were it to actually come to intercene military and civilian conflict (ala a new civil war) it's likely that the military and police forces would just arm civilian allies anyway.
If I lived in the USA, I would learn to use, and then would own & carry guns, partly for the "escalation" reasons mentioned above. In the US, criminals are likely to be armed, too.
In the UK, realistically, the majority of people will never see a gun in their lives, unless they happen to do shooting for sport, or unless they're in the army, or unless they're personally involved in criminal activity. Yes, a small number of criminals use guns, but usually only against other criminals.
well, Since moving doesnt sound like an option, I would do several things:
1) get 911 on your speed dial
2) learn how to effectively improvise weaponry
3) hope things go your way.
I live in the country, and am surrounded by guns. I have no problem shooting someone if the need arrises, but as it is, not yet. as to the debate on weither or not someone should be armed, Where I live its a group of like 10 guys who bully everyone around, and they wont do jack gak unless there are at least 5 of them to you. I do not carry weapons around with me, but I have practiced getting my keys on my fingers to form a sort of brass knuckle, learned how to best hold my pencil so as to keep the point out, and also how to whip my pocket watch out in case I need to use the chain.
I have not really had any reason to suspect that they will hurt me physically, but damn if I'm not prepared
Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, a lot of people have this belief that the military would just do as ordered even if it meant turning guns and tanks on it's own citizens.
Sure there'd be some, maybe even half would do it but in all likelihood the ones ordering the military to start shooting US citizens would be the ones getting fired upon by those they are ordering to do it.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, mate. If the military leaders did something like roll up to the Whitehouse and out Obama or whatever President was in office, then there might be a lot of fuss from the members of the Military itself. It's obviously a clear and (most importantly) unnecessary breach in the Constitution.
However last I heard, the President is Commander-in-Chief, so that little scenario is unlikely.
What is more likely is some sort of Terrorist attack (or series of such) prompting the US Govt. to declare Martial Law on some or even all of America's regions. Martial Law opens up an incredibly nasty can of worms such as arbitary imprisonment, loss of rights, impromptu searches ect. Then it would be all to easy to see the US military shooting down citizens (or vice versa).
I didn't say I was a pacifist.
I still abhor violence.
I also firmly believe that the whole point of building a civilization is to reach a point where it's unnecessary to indulge in it.
Murray wrote:The worst thing that happened at my schools (moved alot) was fist fights, nothing wrong with that, just to blow off steam.
Same's true for me.
OP: learn martial arts in self defence, most of them teach how to counter weapons inc. knifes
You don't have to be the next Jet Li or anything, but you should at least motivate yourself to take some lessons in some kind of fighting technique. Be it basic self-defence, boxing, Karate or whatever, you should be able to at least hold your own in a fight without resorting to pulling a knife. (Which will instantly aggravate the situation.)
Of course, in my opinion coming to blows in any case is a sure sign of either their unwarranted aggresion, your inability to defuse the situation, or a mixture of both.
Improvised weapons like keys, pencils, and pocketwatches are useless. You're better off learning to hit hard. Sure, you might leave a nasty scar by stabbing someone with a pencil, but you're not going to knock them out -- just make them even angrier with you than they already were.
Now, if you have a heavy ashtray, or stool, or chair, or bottle handy -- that's different. That's an improvised weapon. Something that might actually end the fight.
Three quick upward stabs to the neck with a pencil in quick succession will incapacitate/kill. ANYTHING can be a weapon. Its where you strike that counts, if you in a situation that requires keys etc, you had better be ready to kill or main, because thats all you can do to end the fight, like good sir Ian said.
After wading through this thread, (which degraded into 'weapons are de ebil and you musn't protect yourself' a lot faster than I thought it would), I have just two thing to say.
First, to the OP: You are perfectly safe where you are. If the attacker managed not to kill his target when he stabbed him in the neck, then the knife-wielding thugs in your area have no idea how to use a knife. Just grab the knife arm and kick 'em in the nuts. They'll never see it coming.
Second, to the disarmament group: If the only way you can trust me to be a responsable human being is to render me completely harmless, you don't trust me at all.
And I can do more damage with a good sharp pencil than the thug mentioned in the OP managed with a knife. So... do we outlaw pencils? What about baseball bats? Where do you draw the line?
PM me to discuss, I'm not returning to this thread.
First, to the OP: You are perfectly safe where you are. If the attacker managed not to kill his target when he stabbed him in the neck, then the knife-wielding thugs in your area have no idea how to use a knife. Just grab the knife arm and kick 'em in the nuts. They'll never see it coming.
Don't get in fights involving knifes often do you?
econd, to the disarmament group: If the only way you can trust me to be a responsable human being is to render me completely harmless, you don't trust me at all.
Of course not. I don't know you.
And I can do more damage with a good sharp pencil than the thug mentioned in the OP managed with a knife. So... do we outlaw pencils? What about baseball bats? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, and I can do it by waiting for them to crash their car during a snowstorm. We should outlaw the snow. Thats a stupid argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bla_Ze wrote:When reading this thread i thought of a pic i saw quite a while ago. Still it kind if fits, kind of..
Still it makes you think.
PS Sorry for the "propaganda"
So what your saying is that universal healthcare stops gun crime?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Oh. So it's not the guns that are the root of the problem. It's Americans.
I've been saying that from the start. Americans love the hell out of violence and guns, and lack the moral sense to really understand either. The english aren't much better though. You just have less guns.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Oh. So it's not the guns that are the root of the problem. It's Americans.
I've been saying that from the start. Americans love the hell out of violence and guns, and lack the moral sense to really understand either. The english aren't much better though. You just have less guns.
It's not sufficient to say that the Swiss understand such notions by nature, while the Americans don't. There has to be a reason. I, for one, blame Chicken Wings.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Oh. So it's not the guns that are the root of the problem. It's Americans.
I've been saying that from the start. Americans love the hell out of violence and guns, and lack the moral sense to really understand either. The english aren't much better though. You just have less guns.
It's not sufficient to say that the Swiss understand such notions by nature, while the Americans don't. There has to be a reason. I, for one, blame Chicken Wings.
American media and culture has glorified violence, competitiveness, and the gun for hundreds of years. We created the action movie, the western genre, the comic book, the videogame (the first videogame involved shooting), and much more. We're certainly not the most violent culture on the planet. Not even close. But historically we're far from the most peaceful. Eminem can go platinum with rap fantasies about killing and the best selling entertainment property of all time is call of duty: modern warfare 2 in which you literally kill thousands of people. The previous best selling entertainment property was grand theft auto IV. American media is violent, thus American people regard violence as inherent to daily life.
I'm fairly sure that other countries (ergo Canada, UK and Aus) all have similar sorts of media, but nowhere near the same sort of tendency for violence.
There was a fatal school stabbing a few weeks ago here in Queensland and that kicked up a huge fuss, serious changes in the law and school policy have taken effect to prevent it in the future. I'm not saying that these steps will be effective, but I'm kind of worried that over in America it seems to be so much more commonplace.
I'm fairly sure that other countries (ergo Canada, UK and Aus) all have similar sorts of media, but nowhere near the same sort of tendency for violence.
It should also be noted that gun crime statistics are increasing in virtually every stable democratic country that draws from U.S. media sources.
Actually, I've always detested much of the US media. I've always preffered UK shows or even my own ABC to anything that America may offer. No offence Shuma, but American shows are just so...artificial.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I've always detested much of the US media. I've always preffered UK shows or even my own ABC to anything that America may offer. No offence Shuma, but American shows are just so...artificial.
Only the socially and mentally inept learn violent behavior from being exposed to violence.
I was watching R movies back when it was okay for even 8yo's to see them in theatres so long as an adult was present; watched them at home. First horror movie and favorite of mine was "A Nightmare on Elm Street". I was 12, parents let me watch it. They had no interest in it so I wasn't "babysat" while I did it but I watched it.
I was a Freshman when MK hit arcades. Parents didn't care if I used my allowance to go to the arcade and play it.
FFW 20 years later. Never been convicted of a violent crime, do not condone violence, was in 1 fight my entire life at school (the rest I talked my way out of), do not agree with the messages some rappers convey although I like to listen to rappers such as Eminem, don't hate homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers or whatever.
Exposing someone to violence doesn't mean they'll be violent; it increases the odds but it doesn't constitute "auto-violent".
I think family values are in the toilet and have been for the past decade or so. I was raised where mom stayed at home and dad worked. He earned enough to where it wasn't until my senior year when mom had to get a job due to economical changes. The past 10 years has seen more and more single parent households due to higher divorce rate, women acting like whores and riding any stud that comes along and men acting the studs and laying pipe to any and everything and not caring to cap it (apparently lots of men love paying child support). With only one parent household or 2 parents working guess who raises the kids? Either the tv or the teen babysitter who spends more time "OMFGBOBBYISSOCUTE" txting her friends than doing her job so she too just turns on the tv so she can concentrate on her makeup or her iphone. Kids are impressionable and if the parents don't teach good values you get soulless pricks like the Columbine kids or the V-tech dude.
So yeah I joke about GTA and CoD because I know reality from violence. I've never shot someone in real life nor do I want to.........BUT if I have to I'll sleep with a clear conscience knowing that I not only saved my own life but might have saved the life of my brother or anyone else with me when some dude decided to "get stupid".
Only the socially and mentally inept learn violent behavior from being exposed to violence.
Don't take many psych courses do you?
Exposing someone to violence doesn't mean they'll be violent; it increases the odds but it doesn't constitute "auto-violent".
Wait what? So people do in fact learn violent behavior from being exposed to violence?
The past 10 years has seen more and more single parent households due to higher divorce rate, women acting like whores and riding any stud that comes along and men acting the studs and laying pipe to any and everything and not caring to cap it (apparently lots of men love paying child support).
Actually that trend has been continuing for more than half a century, but lets not let reality get in the way of a good rant.
FFW 20 years later. Never been convicted of a violent crime, do not condone violence, was in 1 fight my entire life at school (the rest I talked my way out of), do not agree with the messages some rappers convey although I like to listen to rappers such as Eminem, don't hate homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers or whatever.
Thankfully you are every single person in america. Otherwise this personal anecdote wouldn't work at all.
Kids are impressionable and if the parents don't teach good values you get soulless pricks like the Columbine kids or the V-tech dude.
Wasn't the vtech dude on a student visa from korea?
So yeah I joke about GTA and CoD because I know reality from violence.
Yes because someone overpaid to pound his opinion into your head, who is probably against violence in the first place, is the final authority on matters.
As I just said I watched and played as many violent games and movies at 12 as I do now. I'm not violent irl. I know I can't prove it to you but you'll have to take my word for it.
I don't get a hardon shooting at targets or even handling my guns so obviously violent action does nothing for me.
Glad to think that someone as liberal minded as you thinks courses taught in school trump real life experience. Must be rough being middle class in a nice suburbia where your only fear is the neighbors all painting their houses a different color and since you don't want to stand out having to repaint your own house.
Must be a rough life to have all your real life experiences taught to you in a classroom.
Yes because someone overpaid to pound his opinion into your head, who is probably against violence in the first place, is the final authority on matters.
I'll trust the psychological community and dozens of case studies over some dude that is usually incorrect on matters of factual accuracy regularly on a forum dedicated to plastic toys.
As I just said I watched and played as many violent games and movies at 12 as I do now. I'm not violent irl.
As an interesting contrast I watched plenty of violent shows as a child and I am.
I don't get a hardon shooting at targets or even handling my guns so obviously violent action does nothing for me.
You're the one bringing sex into this, no one else has done that.
Glad to think that someone as liberal minded as you thinks courses taught in school trump real life experience. Must be rough being middle class in a nice suburbia where your only fear is the neighbors all painting their houses a different color and since you don't want to stand out having to repaint your own house.
Do you seriously think your personal experience is the final word in psychological study?
Must be a rough life to have all your real life experiences taught to you in a classroom.
I'm a new media design major. Most of the gak I know is self taught. For someone who has "only ever been in one fight" you certainly do seem to act like I'm the one lacking street experience here.
Fateweaver wrote:
GTA rocks. Beat up hookers, kill innocents, blow up cars and jump cars.
Let's not forget CoD: MW2. Lots of guns and explosions and death. What's not to love?
EF, Shuma, you stand corrected.
I didn't mention games. I was talking about shows such as CSI: Miami or *shudder* some of their talk shows. At least their modern shows are, as I kid I really did enjoy watching re-runs of Get Smart, and my little brother is hooked to it this day. Also, I'm not an avid fan of most rap music but I have seen some very enjoyable and, dare I say it, soul-touching songs by EMINEM.
With all that said, IMHO GTA was a crap game anyway.
Yes because someone overpaid to pound his opinion into your head, who is probably against violence in the first place, is the final authority on matters.
I'll trust the psychological community and dozens of case studies over some dude that is usually incorrect on matters of factual accuracy regularly on a forum dedicated to plastic toys.
As I just said I watched and played as many violent games and movies at 12 as I do now. I'm not violent irl.
As an interesting contrast I watched plenty of violent shows as a child and I am.
I don't get a hardon shooting at targets or even handling my guns so obviously violent action does nothing for me.
You're the one bringing sex into this, no one else has done that.
Glad to think that someone as liberal minded as you thinks courses taught in school trump real life experience. Must be rough being middle class in a nice suburbia where your only fear is the neighbors all painting their houses a different color and since you don't want to stand out having to repaint your own house.
Do you seriously think your personal experience is the final word in psychological study?
Must be a rough life to have all your real life experiences taught to you in a classroom.
I'm a new media design major. Most of the gak I know is self taught. For someone who has "only ever been in one fight" you certainly do seem to act like I'm the one lacking street experience here.
* Dozens of case studies does make a very good basis considering the thousands, even 10's of thousands of violent criminals in prison. If you are talking 1,000 dozen maybe but let's assume 100 violent criminals studied out of 30,000. That's a piss poor sample size.
* I think you hate yourself is why you are so violent but moving on...
* My hardon comment stems from people being violent obviously enjoying it. Maybe not sexual but I'm sure for some it is (rapists don't rape for sexual pleasure, it's the violent sexual act that they enjoy because if they loved romantic sex they wouldn't force themselves on people. If you don't enjoy violence you won't commit violent acts out of necessity.
* Do you think a few dozen case studies is the final word in how violence effects people because I know at least 2 dozen people that are like me and were raised like me. There are as many case studies PROVING violence doesn't breed violence as there are that do.
* Who cares about street experience? I don't need to be a school bully or "tfg" at the bar or gaming store to have real life experience in diffusing violent situations or being exposed to them. You stood up for yourself in HS. Good on you. Not all of us feel the need to fight to "be a man" or "get through life". If my life was ever threatened to where I either kill or be killed I won't hesitate. Could you say the same?
So yeah, keep thinking you are more right than me because some book tells you that EVERY person exposed to violence is violent. If there is such a book I want to read it because than I know the author/quack job who wrote it is full of lies because I can prove violence does NOT beget violence.
Fateweaver wrote:If my life was ever threatened to where I either kill or be killed I won't hesitate.
And just how do you determine that situation?
If someone is pointing a gun at you, it's probably too late to try and get your own gun out to shoot them back. If someone is saying something along the lines of 'I'm gonna kill you' and you then shoot them, what happens if it was just trash talk?
Absolutely right -- violence in the media is what causes violence in real life... after all, the Tudor era was far more violent than modern times. I blame that psycho Shakespeare, for all those violent plays, with beheadings and child-murder and stuff.
The Roman Empire's campaigns of mass murder are all due to the arena -- give people violent entertainment, and what do you get? A whole nation of systematic killers!
Anyway. I exaggerate to make a point. But if you chart violence over time, you can see that the availability & realism of violent entertainment correlates directly with a reduction in actual violence.
We live in a relatively enlightened era, and one that's getting more and more enlightened over time. That's why we perceive it as violent -- because, in fact, we are far less tolerant of real-world violence than any society in previous human history.
Fateweaver wrote:If my life was ever threatened to where I either kill or be killed I won't hesitate.
And just how do you determine that situation?
If someone is pointing a gun at you, it's probably too late to try and get your own gun out to shoot them back. If someone is saying something along the lines of 'I'm gonna kill you' and you then shoot them, what happens if it was just trash talk?
Lot's of determining factors. Odds are then I'd take the chance he won't shoot. I'm not a speed drawer so you are right, I'd be shot going for my gun. On the other hand it may not necessarily be a fatal wound giving me time to get off a shot of my own. If it's a non-lethal shot I'll probably injure if not outright kill the guy as well. On the other hand, if he's not prepared for me to have a gun or is hesitant themselves than I'll get a shot off first. Sure he'd fire in reaction but then again it'll either be a miss on his part or he'll hit me (hopefully not doing any permanent damage).
If the person is unarmed and we are in a public place with witnesses and he threatens to kill me than I have 2 choices. Perceive it as an empty threat and walk away or take it seriously and draw. If that person continues to threaten and or act in a menacing and threatening way toward me I can and do have the right to defend myself.
If that person comes into my house, all bets are off. In my state, thanks to the "Castle Law" I am authorized by the Mn government to use deadly force in order to protect my home, family and myself from being the victim of a felony and the felony has already been committed by that person "burglarizing" my home. He doesn't even have to threaten me personally. On the other hand if he/she turns to run away after I confront them and I shoot them in the back than the crime is on me as that person was attempting to diffuse the situation. But then again I don't have to give that person a chance to walk away or turn himself in. I hear my window being broken or door kicked in I can draw, aim and shoot.
Any of the 3 situations above would happen in a matter of seconds and so while I wouldn't have all day to contemplate my next move I would have just enough time to decide if I want to die OR live and suffer potential consequences. So long as I feel threatened I have the right to defend myself. Most of the time you are not going to be the victim of a prank. If someone, armed or unarmed walks up to me and says "give me your money or I'll kill you", there is a good chance they are serious. If they want to see their next birthday they'll walk away and forget they were trying for the Darwin award.
I'm the past 16 years I've been legally carrying I've never had to even draw once. I hope it continues but I also take comfort in knowing if I have to make that decision that I'm prepared for it. I'd rather be prepared for something that may never happen then to be caught off guard and be unprepared. That is my right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and I exercise that right.
Fateweaver wrote:
Lot's of determining factors. Odds are then I'd take the chance he won't shoot. I'm not a speed drawer so you are right, I'd be shot going for my gun. On the other hand it may not necessarily be a fatal wound giving me time to get off a shot of my own. If it's a non-lethal shot I'll probably injure if not outright kill the guy as well. On the other hand, if he's not prepared for me to have a gun or is hesitant themselves than I'll get a shot off first. Sure he'd fire in reaction but then again it'll either be a miss on his part or he'll hit me (hopefully not doing any permanent damage).
There's a good saying: if you know you've been shot, you're going to be fine. Furthermore, most people harbor the mistaken belief that 1 round will put someone down and out consistently. So if you can find it in you (supposedly not as hard as it sounds, given adrenalin and vascular constriction in a combat situation) to shoot back and seriously down the target, even after you've taken a round, you have a very good chance of winning. And living to see another day.
In the past 16 years I've been legally carrying I've never had to even draw once. I hope it continues but I also take comfort in knowing if I have to make that decision that I'm prepared for it. I'd rather be prepared for something that may never happen then to be caught off guard and be unprepared. That is my right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and I exercise that right.
QFT. I hope to be able to say the same thing someday.
Actually by exaggerating in sarcasm you lose your point entirely.
ut if you chart violence over time, you can see that the availability & realism of violent entertainment correlates directly with a reduction in actual violence.
Oddly enough if you chart the availability & realism of food over time you run into the same thing. Same with education. Same with literacy. Same with virtually every other "virtue" that is endemic to progressive modernization. That states nothing to the effect of violence on the psyche of a human being.
We live in a relatively enlightened era, and one that's getting more and more enlightened over time. That's why we perceive it as violent -- because, in fact, we are far less tolerant of real-world violence than any society in previous human history.
Globally? Or is there a specific society you are remarking upon? Regardless however it has nothing to do with the concept of violent media influencing violent acts or tendencies in the viewer.
There's a good saying: if you know you've been shot, you're going to be fine. Furthermore, most people harbor the mistaken belief that 1 round will put someone down and out consistently. So if you can find it in you (supposedly not as hard as it sounds, given adrenalin and vascular constriction in a combat situation) to shoot back and seriously down the target, even after you've taken a round, you have a very good chance of winning. And living to see another day.
Thats a terrible saying. The vast majority of fatal wounds are not instantly so.
There's a good saying: if you know you've been shot, you're going to be fine. Furthermore, most people harbor the mistaken belief that 1 round will put someone down and out consistently. So if you can find it in you (supposedly not as hard as it sounds, given adrenalin and vascular constriction in a combat situation) to shoot back and seriously down the target, even after you've taken a round, you have a very good chance of winning. And living to see another day.
Thats a terrible saying. The vast majority of fatal wounds are not instantly so.
I'm sorry that I thought that, "...with relatively immediate medical treatment." was so obvious as to not be included in my first sentence.
There's a good saying: if you know you've been shot, you're going to be fine. Furthermore, most people harbor the mistaken belief that 1 round will put someone down and out consistently. So if you can find it in you (supposedly not as hard as it sounds, given adrenalin and vascular constriction in a combat situation) to shoot back and seriously down the target, even after you've taken a round, you have a very good chance of winning. And living to see another day.
Thats a terrible saying. The vast majority of fatal wounds are not instantly so.
I'm sorry that I thought that, "...with relatively immediate medical treatment." was so obvious as to not be included in my first sentence.
I'm slightly confused. Was Ian Sturocks point that, in order to reduce violence, we should hold gladitorial games? I must say that I find the notion frightfully appealing.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm slightly confused. Was Ian Sturocks point that, in order to reduce violence, we should hold gladitorial games? I must say that I find the notion frightfully appealing.
The networks could just take shows like "American Gladiator" & UFC and just "up the stakes"...I'm sure Red Bull & Budwieser would jump at the chance to sponser them.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm slightly confused. Was Ian Sturocks point that, in order to reduce violence, we should hold gladitorial games? I must say that I find the notion frightfully appealing.
The networks could just take shows like "American Gladiator" & UFC and just "up the stakes"...I'm sure Red Bull & Budwieser would jump at the chance to sponser them.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm slightly confused. Was Ian Sturocks point that, in order to reduce violence, we should hold gladitorial games? I must say that I find the notion frightfully appealing.
The networks could just take shows like "American Gladiator" & UFC and just "up the stakes"...I'm sure Red Bull & Budwieser would jump at the chance to sponser them.
Red Bull/Budwieser tag team go!
" Ladies and Gentlemen!!!,tonight on Saturday night Slash-o-rama we have the defending Red Bull/Budwiser tag team champions Maximus & Juba going against the dastardly dou of Jervis Johnson & Gavin Thorpe in a battle to the DEATH!!.
Also on the card we have Sarah Jessica Parker Vs Lady Gaga in a veet hair removale pit match!!!..BUT!!,to get things started we are going to tie Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart together,slather them in bacon grease and unleash a pack of starving PIT BULLS!!!...All this and more coming up after these mesages from Budwieser!!!"
Yeah EF,we should definatly get in on the ground floor of this project...the earning potential is amazing.
" Ladies and Gentlemen!!!,tonight on Saturday night Slash-o-rama we have the defending Red Bull/Budwiser tag team champions Maximus & Juba going against the dastardly dou of Jervis Johnson & Gavin Thorpe in a battle to the DEATH!!.
Also on the card we have Sarah Jessica Parker Vs Lady Gaga in a veet hair removale pit match!!!..BUT!!,to get things started we are going to tie Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart together,slather them in bacon grease and unleash a pack of starving PIT BULLS!!!...All this and more coming up after these mesages from Budwieser!!!"
Only the socially and mentally inept learn violent behavior from being exposed to violence.
I was watching R movies back when it was okay for even 8yo's to see them in theatres so long as an adult was present; watched them at home. First horror movie and favorite of mine was "A Nightmare on Elm Street". I was 12, parents let me watch it. They had no interest in it so I wasn't "babysat" while I did it but I watched it.
I was a Freshman when MK hit arcades. Parents didn't care if I used my allowance to go to the arcade and play it.
FFW 20 years later. Never been convicted of a violent crime, do not condone violence, was in 1 fight my entire life at school (the rest I talked my way out of), do not agree with the messages some rappers convey although I like to listen to rappers such as Eminem, don't hate homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers or whatever.
Exposing someone to violence doesn't mean they'll be violent; it increases the odds but it doesn't constitute "auto-violent".
I think family values are in the toilet and have been for the past decade or so. I was raised where mom stayed at home and dad worked. He earned enough to where it wasn't until my senior year when mom had to get a job due to economical changes. The past 10 years has seen more and more single parent households due to higher divorce rate, women acting like whores and riding any stud that comes along and men acting the studs and laying pipe to any and everything and not caring to cap it (apparently lots of men love paying child support). With only one parent household or 2 parents working guess who raises the kids? Either the tv or the teen babysitter who spends more time "OMFGBOBBYISSOCUTE" txting her friends than doing her job so she too just turns on the tv so she can concentrate on her makeup or her iphone. Kids are impressionable and if the parents don't teach good values you get soulless pricks like the Columbine kids or the V-tech dude.
So yeah I joke about GTA and CoD because I know reality from violence. I've never shot someone in real life nor do I want to.........BUT if I have to I'll sleep with a clear conscience knowing that I not only saved my own life but might have saved the life of my brother or anyone else with me when some dude decided to "get stupid".
Surely I say unto you dudes, this man speaketh the truth. I have nothing further to add to this conversation.
"If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." — Marcus Brigstocke
I didn't say I was a pacifist.
I still abhor violence.
I also firmly believe that the whole point of building a civilization is to reach a point where it's unnecessary to indulge in it
The point of a civilization is to find security within it. The general way of doing that is to kill off all outsiders. And the best ways to kill off outsiders is generally found through the fruits of civilisation!
"If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." — Marcus Brigstocke
Fateweaver wrote:You just can't admit that your textbook view of the world isn't the only view.
Geez, I am shocked!!
And you can't admit that you don't seem to know anything. About any topic. In any field. Of course my "textbook" view of the world isn't the only one. Otherwise people like you couldn't be wrong about things consistently!
You cannot disprove what I said about violence not effecting everyone equally.
I can prove it doesn't.
So I do know things Shuma. But I imagine the sheltered life you led as a probably upper middle class child in a predominantly rich suburbia skews your view of just how much or how little violence has an impact.
If you seriously think that every person exposed to violence for long periods of time ends up violent JUST because some college textbook says it happens or that some nut job doctor making $300/hour says it in a book......
Well my friend, I happen to be selling the Golden Gate Bridge along with 300 acres in Manhattan that I'll let go real cheap.
You cannot disprove what I said about violence not effecting everyone equally.
Oddly enough though I never claimed it did.
I can prove it doesn't.
I'll wait to see your scientific dissertation!
So I do know things Shuma. But I imagine the sheltered life you led as a probably upper middle class child in a predominantly rich suburbia skews your view of just how much or how little violence has an impact.
I lived in a trailer park for twelve years, but hey, don't let reality get in the way of your crazy fantasy world.
If you seriously think that every person exposed to violence for long periods of time ends up violent JUST because some college textbook says it happens or that some nut job doctor making $300/hour says it in a book......
Actually empirical evidence is poor evidence and there have been dozens of single, double, triple blind, mass, micro, human, animal, international, national, public, and private experiments that prove the same thing. The human psyche reacts to violence by becoming more prone to violent reactions to stimuli. It makes sense evolutionarily.
Well my friend, I happen to be selling the Golden Gate Bridge along with 300 acres in Manhattan that I'll let go real cheap.
No you don't. You were just forced to leave your apartment, I sincerely doubt you own billions of dollars of Manhatten real estate and a major American landmark.
You cannot disprove what I said about violence not effecting everyone equally.
Oddly enough though I never claimed it did.
I can prove it doesn't.
I'll wait to see your scientific dissertation!
So I do know things Shuma. But I imagine the sheltered life you led as a probably upper middle class child in a predominantly rich suburbia skews your view of just how much or how little violence has an impact.
I lived in a trailer park for twelve years, but hey, don't let reality get in the way of your crazy fantasy world.
If you seriously think that every person exposed to violence for long periods of time ends up violent JUST because some college textbook says it happens or that some nut job doctor making $300/hour says it in a book......
Actually empirical evidence is poor evidence and there have been dozens of single, double, triple blind, mass, micro, human, animal, international, national, public, and private experiments that prove the same thing. The human psyche reacts to violence by becoming more prone to violent reactions to stimuli. It makes sense evolutionarily.
Well my friend, I happen to be selling the Golden Gate Bridge along with 300 acres in Manhattan that I'll let go real cheap.
No you don't. You were just forced to leave your apartment, I sincerely doubt you own billions of dollars of Manhatten real estate and a major American landmark.
Science can't prove or disprove anything.....see also religion.
When was I forced out of an apartment I did not live in? I really must be asleep.
People might become less sensitive to violence through being around it but that doesn't mean those people will become violent themselves. Everyone is prone to bouts of anger. It's human nature to become angry. Possibly, even probably a person who watched one of his/her parents beat the other one daily will become more violent when they start to feel emotional anger but that does not equate to someone who grew up in a home full of abuse becoming a violent person themselves unprovoked.
Perhaps the vast majority of people growing up around abuse become abusers themselves or just plain mean. I won't doubt that and you can prove that because I do agree with you. What you can't disprove is that people being constantly around violence (like abusive homes or bullied in school or just through media (tv has as large of an impact on youth as does real life)) don't ALL turn out violent or abusive. I'm an example. My bro is another example.
Just because a few experiments can prove something correct does not make it infallible proof that that condition will automatically lead to the same end result all the time. Smoking will not always lead to lung cancer even though it's been proven it does more often than not. Consuming 6k calories in one day, everyday does not mean that person will become obese even though most people would become obese. There are lots of things science can prove but scientific proof is not the end all, be all of life.
So just because some kids grows up watching ONLY R-rated movies does not mean he/she will go and shoot up his school or go on a killing spree in his neighborhood or state to state. Are there negative effects? I'm sure there are but you surely can't claim that violence begets violence (which is what the last 3 pages have been going on about). I don't need science to prove that the affect that watching as many violent tv shows and movies as wholesome tv shows and movies has had on me is non-existant. Of course I can't prove it to you but I don't need to prove it. I imagine if you had more friends and people around you that you grew up with you'd realize that I am right.
You just can't admit it. You have to poke holes in everything I say even when deep down you know I'm right.
Besides, you'd be the last man on Earth I'd offer the GGB too.
Fateweaver wrote:
If you seriously think that every person exposed to violence for long periods of time ends up violent JUST because some college textbook says it happens or that some nut job doctor making $300/hour says it in a book......
I don't believe he said anything about every person becoming violent with absolute certainty. I do believe he implied certain things about probability which are supported by some rigorous demographic work.
You just can't admit it. You have to poke holes in everything I say even when deep down you know I'm right.
I'm not the one arguing against common psychological teachings because playing mortal kombat as a kid didn't make me commit a murder. I think deep down you should really review just what it is you actually think you know.
Fateweaver wrote:I think he is laughing at the thought that I am right since apparently only Shuma is ever right (at least in his own mind).
When it comes down to Shuma or you, yeah, he's right a good 90-99% of the time.
When it comes down to you and anyone who doesn't have a Reagan-praising signature, they're probably right too.
Oh I'm sorry. I don't recall asking for your input Mad.
Get in line behind Shuma and all the other brain-wahsed college flunkies.
Want to discuss computers Mad? Or women? Or guns?
I probably know as much about those 3 topics as you. Or would you rather make more asinine comments in defense of a person who thinks I can never be right and he can never be wrong?
If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too. But go ahead and keep thinking that I'm never right in what I say because frankly, I don't care if you think that way. You are a person on a computer somewhere I don't know who I will never meet.
Fateweaver wrote:
Science can't prove or disprove anything.....see also religion.
You are correct that science cannot prove anything (it uses a preponderance of evidence as a measure of utility), but the notion that it cannot disprove anything is flatly false. Science can, and has frequently, disproven many theories. The classical example being phlogiston.
Fateweaver wrote:
There are lots of things science can prove but scientific proof is not the end all, be all of life.
You just said that science can't prove of disprove anything. Do you believe that statement, or this one?
Fateweaver wrote:
I don't need science to prove that the affect that watching as many violent tv shows and movies as wholesome tv shows and movies has had on me is non-existant.
A single anecdote contributes very little, essentially nothing, to trend analysis.
If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too.
Actually I would give you a gold star and say you were doing a great job. Unfortunately instead of simple things like that you decide to comment on psychological theory, politics, economics, and foreign affairs. Things you have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no knowledge of. Thus I disagree with you often.
Fateweaver wrote:
Science can't prove or disprove anything.....see also religion.
You are correct that science cannot prove anything (it uses a preponderance of evidence as a measure of utility), but the notion that it cannot disprove anything is flatly false. Science can, and has frequently, disproven many theories. The classical example being phlogiston.
Fateweaver wrote:
There are lots of things science can prove but scientific proof is not the end all, be all of life.
You just said that science can't prove of disprove anything. Do you believe that statement, or this one?
Fateweaver wrote:
I don't need science to prove that the affect that watching as many violent tv shows and movies as wholesome tv shows and movies has had on me is non-existant.
A single anecdote contributes very little, essentially nothing, to trend analysis.
Had you been paying attention Dogma I never said violence doesn't affect ANYBODY. Violence does not affect EVERYONE the same. Just because 99/100 people would get lung cancer from smoking and 1 doesn't only PROVES that smoking does not cause lung cancer in everybody.
So you see. ANYONE =/= EVERYONE.
Again, science cannot prove everything. I don't want to derail this into science vs religion thread but science cannot disprove that God exists. Science can prove that not all humans get lung cancer from smoking.
It's not just a single anecdote. I don't know the sample size used but lets say they (psychologists) were able to study 1,000,000 people from birth to age 65 who were specifically exposed to violence on a daily basis from birth until the age of 65 the doctors would find that not everyone will become violent after 65 years of being subject to violence. Some would be unaffected by it. Even if that percentage is as low as 1% it still proves that violence does not affect everyone equally.
That is my point. I'm not saying violence has no affect. I'm saying it does not affect everybody the same way. Shuma and a few others say I don't know what I'm talking about. It is simple math.
If 1 person is unaffected by something than that automatically discredits theories that ALL would be affected by that same stimuli/situation.
If you have 100 pieces of candy and I take 99 I did not take ALL your candy, I took SOME of your candy. If I take all 100 pieces than I took it ALL. Simple enough or should I draw a pie chart?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too.
Actually I would give you a gold star and say you were doing a great job. Unfortunately instead of simple things like that you decide to comment on psychological theory, politics, economics, and foreign affairs. Things you have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no knowledge of. Thus I disagree with you often.
You just can't give up can you Shuma?
I'd like to believe that you'd agree with me if I said the sky was blue but I know you'd try to get all scientific and gak and use anecdotes like "it's not blue at night" or "it's not blue in the dawn when it has a pinkish/reddish hue to it".
I'm laughing over here because you think I'm saying what I'm not and then trying to argue it. Reread carefully. Not one comment of mine did I say anywhere that violence doesn't have a negative impact on people because it didn't on me. I said kids exposed to violence early on don't all become psychotics and I can prove that's the case. Just because it might be single digit percentile that can live through violence and end up "normal" in life doesn't mean that my theories and beliefs are any more wrong than someone with a PhD who wrote it in a book.
Go ahead though and keep believing that because a doctor wrote it that is must have some merit. I mean the global-warming scientists have written reports and published findings that we are causing global warming, even though 90% of the worlds population thinks that's a crock of gak. So you see, just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they necessarily know what they are talking about or even being honest.
Fateweaver wrote:I think he is laughing at the thought that I am right since apparently only Shuma is ever right (at least in his own mind).
When it comes down to Shuma or you, yeah, he's right a good 90-99% of the time.
When it comes down to you and anyone who doesn't have a Reagan-praising signature, they're probably right too.
Oh I'm sorry. I don't recall asking for your input Mad.
This is a forum. For open discussion. If this were a PM conversation, that would be understandable.
Get in line behind Shuma and all the other brain-wahsed college flunkies.
I can't tell whether you fear the educated or just can't spell.
You can call anyone brain washed or college educated or whatever you like, but it really doesn't bother me.
Want to discuss computers Mad? Or women? Or guns?
I probably know as much about those 3 topics as you. Or would you rather make more asinine comments in defense of a person who thinks I can never be right and he can never be wrong?
Well, I put together a computer that runs pretty well, so we could talk about that.
I've been in meaningful relationships with several women, so we could talk about that.
Well, I was in the Boy Scouts, so I'm well versed in most shooting sports, even though I rarely practice them. I also know that the 2nd Amendment is largely useless due to the Supreme Court case Presser v. Illinois.
Start a thread on any of those subjects and we'll talk. I don't know if you're an expert, but apparently you think you are. While we're at it, I can name some things I probably know better than you:
Punk music and its various related genres/culture
Medieval history
Music theory/performance (Guitar, Bass, Drums)
See? I know things too.
I'll defend Shuma, because he makes legitimate points. If he says you're never right, try proving him wrong. In several threads, you have yet to do so.
If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too. But go ahead and keep thinking that I'm never right in what I say because frankly, I don't care if you think that way. You are a person on a computer somewhere I don't know who I will never meet.
It's okay to disagree with someone, even if it's on just about everything. I can't think of anything I agree with Sarah Palin on, but it doesn't bother me.
In any case, I will continue agree with Shuma, as long as his arguments are thought out, and yours are kneejerk attacks on education and science.
I'd like to believe that you'd agree with me if I said the sky was blue but I know you'd try to get all scientific and gak and use anecdotes like "it's not blue at night" or "it's not blue in the dawn when it has a pinkish/reddish hue to it".
I'm laughing over here because you think I'm saying what I'm not and then trying to argue it. Reread carefully. Not one comment of mine did I say anywhere that violence doesn't have a negative impact on people because it didn't on me. I said kids exposed to violence early on don't all become psychotics and I can prove that's the case. Just because it might be single digit percentile that can live through violence and end up "normal" in life doesn't mean that my theories and beliefs are any more wrong than someone with a PhD who wrote it in a book.
Go ahead though and keep believing that because a doctor wrote it that is must have some merit. I mean the global-warming scientists have written reports and published findings that we are causing global warming, even though 90% of the worlds population thinks that's a crock of gak. So you see, just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they necessarily know what they are talking about or even being honest.
Fateweaver wrote:I think he is laughing at the thought that I am right since apparently only Shuma is ever right (at least in his own mind).
When it comes down to Shuma or you, yeah, he's right a good 90-99% of the time.
When it comes down to you and anyone who doesn't have a Reagan-praising signature, they're probably right too.
Oh I'm sorry. I don't recall asking for your input Mad.
This is a forum. For open discussion. If this were a PM conversation, that would be understandable.
Get in line behind Shuma and all the other brain-wahsed college flunkies.
I can't tell whether you fear the educated or just can't spell.
You can call anyone brain washed or college educated or whatever you like, but it really doesn't bother me.
Want to discuss computers Mad? Or women? Or guns?
I probably know as much about those 3 topics as you. Or would you rather make more asinine comments in defense of a person who thinks I can never be right and he can never be wrong?
Well, I put together a computer that runs pretty well, so we could talk about that.
I've been in meaningful relationships with several women, so we could talk about that.
Well, I was in the Boy Scouts, so I'm well versed in most shooting sports, even though I rarely practice them. I also know that the 2nd Amendment is largely useless due to the Supreme Court case Presser v. Illinois.
Start a thread on any of those subjects and we'll talk. I don't know if you're an expert, but apparently you think you are. While we're at it, I can name some things I probably know better than you:
Punk music and its various related genres/culture
Medieval history
Music theory/performance (Guitar, Bass, Drums)
See? I know things too.
I'll defend Shuma, because he makes legitimate points. If he says you're never right, try proving him wrong. In several threads, you have yet to do so.
If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too. But go ahead and keep thinking that I'm never right in what I say because frankly, I don't care if you think that way. You are a person on a computer somewhere I don't know who I will never meet.
It's okay to disagree with someone, even if it's on just about everything. I can't think of anything I agree with Sarah Palin on, but it doesn't bother me.
In any case, I will continue agree with Shuma, as long as his arguments are thought out, and yours are kneejerk attacks on education and science.
Do you not understand English Mad? He can't prove me wrong on the topic of violence and it's effects on people. He cites books and case studies proving violence does effect people. I'm not saying it doesn't. Furthermore he and Dogma are equating "majority" with "all".
Now I'm not sure what school he went to from k-12 but can you not agree that "majority" =/= "all". Not "all" (there is that word again) kids exposed to violence become violent as adults. The "majority" of them probably do but again "majority" does not equal "all".
If you can't see that than I don't know how the hell you ever made it past 1st grade. If I take the majority of your cookies and eat them I did not take ALL of them.
Is it clear to you now? Need I draw a picture?
So again, go on thinking that once again I'm wrong and that I'm attacking the educated and science. I'm attacking flawed logic and obviously if educated means having the capacity for logic that some posters on here have because they are in college or graduated college than I'm glad I'm considered "uneducated."
(Granted there are only about 30 of us...)
),the simple fact is the world exist as it does and disarming citizens is not the answer to ending "gun crimes" or violent crime.
" Ladies and Gentlemen!!!,tonight on Saturday night Slash-o-rama we have the defending Red Bull/Budwiser tag team champions Maximus & Juba going against the dastardly dou of Jervis Johnson & Gavin Thorpe in a battle to the DEATH!!.
