Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:
1. They may have wrote it but now it's mine

Good answer.

AustonT wrote:
2. Yes

Child porn is something I'm the fence about, drawn CP isn't a huge deal to me (Its basically victimless.), but I can see clear reasons why photographic CP should be illegal.

AustonT wrote:
3. Because I'll shoot you

Another good answer.

Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:

Joey wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...

Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.

Discuss.

A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.

On the positive Genghis Connie is officially a better shot with my Beretta 92 than the .22lrs now. I need to get another one as it was monopolized by her and the Wife, reducing me to a .380 at the range (needmore ammo for the Kimber). Writing is on the wall and my tweaked Beretta is now pretty much no longer mine. Time for another! We murderized a pumpkin and some milk jugs full of colored water yesterday.

CptJake wrote:
Do you hate sword collectors? Chefs? Farmers? Car Collectors? All these people have collections of very dangerous tools but doesn't mean they will use them to kill.

In my country those aren't all inherintly deadly vocations. Guns are used primarilly for shooting other people, its what they were designed for, things like clay pigeon shooting came much later (and originally as only a way to train how to kill the real ones). My grand father has a sword collection from around the world that he collected when he was a soldier. He had his house broken into and he didn't pull one of them out and start swinging because their meant for show and are useless now. If the gun collections that your on about were filled with weapons that couldn't be used then they would be fine, there's loads of them here in the UK, but all someone has to do is load them to use them as a weapon. It doesn't matter how much security you give them , it can still happen (and this thread is all about those slim factors...).

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:

Joey wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...

Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.

Discuss.

A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.

I'm 6 foot 1.
If I want to "feel like a man" i'll wear a t-shirt or roll my sleeves up so everyone around me knows they're weaker than me.
If you need a gun to do that you're a pussy.

dogma wrote:[

Child porn is something I'm the fence about, drawn CP isn't a huge deal to me (Its basically victimless.), but I can see clear reasons why photographic CP should be illegal.

.....Are you being serious here? 0.o

Child Pornography in any form is paedophelia and a crime throughout the western world. ...I wouldn't go about voicing that view if I were you.

Frazzled wrote:
A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.

What if they also happen to be a midget?

.

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:

Joey wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...

Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.

Discuss.

A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.

I'm 6 foot 1.
If I want to "feel like a man" i'll wear a t-shirt or roll my sleeves up so everyone around me knows they're weaker than me.
If you need a gun to do that you're a pussy.

Come try that in my hood you buck teeth

Wyrmalla wrote:
.....Are you being serious here? 0.o

Child Pornography in any form is paedophelia and a crime throughout the western world. ...I wouldn't go about voicing that view if I were you.

I'm being serious. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile, simply to molest children. Photographic CP involves the victimization of a child, so I place it on par with molesting children. Drawn CP strikes me as something that may actually help pedophiles avoid molesting children, as a form of release, and does not victimize a child (unless a child was used as a nude subject).

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:

Joey wrote:

thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...

Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.

Discuss.

A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.

I'm 6 foot 1.
If I want to "feel like a man" i'll wear a t-shirt or roll my sleeves up so everyone around me knows they're weaker than me.
If you need a gun to do that you're a pussy.

Still awaiting results of cat fight.

dogma wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:
.....Are you being serious here? 0.o

Child Pornography in any form is paedophelia and a crime throughout the western world. ...I wouldn't go about voicing that view if I were you.

I'm being serious. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile, simply to molest children. Photographic CP involves the victimization of a child, so I place it on par with molesting children. Drawn CP strikes me as something that may actually help pedophiles avoid molesting children, as a form of release, and does not victimize a child (unless a child was used as a nude subject).

0.0

Uh.....

What?

Paedophelia isn't ilegal in the US? ....That's pretty backward man. I mean, WTF? A person shouldn't be sexually attracted to a child in any form, no less have a way of releasing said tension as you put it over a drawn representation of their vices. Aww man, that's screwed up.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:
Come try that in my hood you buck teeth

Post proper images, yankeedoodle flimflammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyrmalla wrote:

dogma wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:
.....Are you being serious here? 0.o

Child Pornography in any form is paedophelia and a crime throughout the western world. ...I wouldn't go about voicing that view if I were you.

I'm being serious. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile, simply to molest children. Photographic CP involves the victimization of a child, so I place it on par with molesting children. Drawn CP strikes me as something that may actually help pedophiles avoid molesting children, as a form of release, and does not victimize a child (unless a child was used as a nude subject).

0.0

Uh.....

What?

Paedophelia isn't ilegal in the US? ....That's pretty backward man. I mean, WTF? A person shouldn't be sexually attracted to a child in any form, no less have a way of releasing said tension as you put it over a drawn representation of their vices. Aww man, that's screwed up.

You cannot criminalize pedophilia. It's a pretty big topic so I won't go into here, but afaik it's not illegal anywhere.

Wyrmalla wrote:
0.0

Uh.....

What?

Paedophelia isn't ilegal in the US? ....That's pretty backward man. I mean, WTF? A person shouldn't be sexually attracted to a child in any form, no less have a way of releasing said tension as you put it over a drawn representation of their vices. Aww man, that's screwed up.

If you want we can start a new thread, but it will be locked quickly, most likely.

Joey wrote:
You cannot criminalize pedophilia. It's a pretty big topic so I won't go into here, but afaik it's not illegal anywhere.

Right, but the owning of any form of child pornography (including stuff that has been drawn) is illegal in the US right? It should be illegal here too. Sorry, but the idea that any of the is allowed is pretty messed up to me.

But I guess that would be for another topic (and this one's already a spin off). =/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
If you want we can start a new thread, but it will be locked quickly, most likely.

Yeah...discussing whether or not any of that is right is just plain wrong man.

Wyrmalla wrote:

Joey wrote:
You cannot criminalize pedophilia. It's a pretty big topic so I won't go into here, but afaik it's not illegal anywhere.

Right, but the owning of any form of child pornography (including stuff that has been drawn) is illegal in the US right? It should be illegal here too. Sorry, but the idea that any of the is allowed is pretty messed up to me.

But I guess that would be for another topic (and this one's already a spin off). =/

Drawings are covered under freedom of speech. This isn't communist China.

There was a case where lots of people were arrested because of "child porn" that was distributed by the police and then found on the suspects computers.

This "child porn" was digitally created and was photographs of legal aged porn altered to look like kids.

The case ended up being thrown out because "fake child porn" is not illegal because no children were harmed.

d-usa wrote:There was a case where lots of people were arrested because of "child porn" that was distributed by the police and then found on the suspects computers.

This "child porn" was digitally created and was photographs of legal aged porn altered to look like kids.

The case ended up being thrown out because "fake child porn" is not illegal because no children were harmed.

Right. Want to make a new thread, or not? I would happily contribute to such a thread but don't drag this OT.

Joey wrote:
Right. Want to make a new thread, or not? I would happily contribute to such a thread but don't drag this OT.

Serious issues passing around the OT forums tonight on Dakka... ^^'

Well, would it be on-topic if people used their guns to shoot people who own child porn?

But seriously, I agree, this would warrant a thread of it's own. Sorry about the OT.

Ahtman wrote:Going by the responses the main reason is that people live in constant fear of home invasion.

Not me. Now sockpuppets and jackalopes, thats a different story. Terrifying!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.

No different from any other rural country. Thing is a farmer who has a gun for killing pests/predators, is harmless.
No one who lives in a city needs a gun.

Thats so wrong its not funny-but this is coming from the guy who thinks he can kick the ass of a mountain lion barehanded.

The colonies were formed by people stealing it from its rightful owners (ok except French Louisiana). The farmers in the US had a chance the guy at the door was a warparty looking to wipe them and everyone along the frontier out. Now that may be the same in Liverpool, but I don't think London had quite the same issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrMerlin wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:No one who lives in a city needs a gun.

You keep telling yourself that, but you will of course always be wrong.

people also keep telling themselves that they need a gun.

but they will of course always be wrong

dont know where you live, but here in germany i haven't even HEARD about a burglary in this area. EVER!

i certainly dont need a gun

. I think the all those Jews that got slaughtered would have been better off with guns.

Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.

No different from any other rural country. Thing is a farmer who has a gun for killing pests/predators, is harmless.
No one who lives in a city needs a gun.

Thats so wrong its not funny-but this is coming from the guy who thinks he can kick the ass of a mountain lion barehanded.

The colonies were formed by people stealing it from its rightful owners (ok except French Louisiana). The farmers in the US had a chance the guy at the door was a warparty looking to wipe them and everyone along the frontier out. Now that may be the same in Liverpool, but I don't think London had quite the same issues.

Did you even read what I put? I said people in rural areas DO need guns. People in sub-urbs do not.

Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrMerlin wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:No one who lives in a city needs a gun.

You keep telling yourself that, but you will of course always be wrong.

people also keep telling themselves that they need a gun.

but they will of course always be wrong

dont know where you live, but here in germany i haven't even HEARD about a burglary in this area. EVER!

i certainly dont need a gun

. I think the all those Jews that got slaughtered would have been better off with guns.

No, they'd have died all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_uprising
Those guys had plenty of guns.

Im pretty sure that a million armed jews would have been quite a problem

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
. I think the all those Jews that got slaughtered would have been better off with guns.

No, they'd have died all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_uprising
Those guys had plenty of guns.

Yeah, I think that in the battle between firearms and tanks the tanks'll always come out on top. Luckily the right to own a tank wasn't written into the constitution as well. =P

Seaward wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:They completely banned all handguns and civilian firearms and went about confiscating every one they could find, grabbing hundreds more off the street every month. Possession of them was a crime and prosecuted as such, and the police department was pushing that fact HARD for almost a decade.

The crime rate, meanwhile, increased.

Which only means that there was insufficient enforcement and penalties. Gun control works if you control all of the guns.

Which is, as I said way back on page 1, very likely an impossible proposition in the US at this point.

So let's deal with the reality of the situation. Britain doesn't have a lot of guns, huzzah for Britain. They can have bobbies going about helping old ladies un-tree their cats.

The US has gakloads of guns, boo for the US. As someone living here, and as someone living here who's lived in really bad neighborhoods, I'll take any possible self-defense tools I can get in that environment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?

You can't control all the guns. Give me 2,000 and I will get you a fully select fire AK74 straight from mother Russia by way of Columbia of Venezuela. The border is open down here.
I have grown up and lived my life around people who're ardent Freudians.
I realise this doesn't compare to your AS level in psychology but believe it or not I do know what I'm talking about.

I have grown up and lived my whole life around fighter pilots. Clearly, you can put me in the cockpit of an F/A-18 and I'd know what I was talking about.

Also, aren't you the guy who was pretty certain he could beat a mountain lion in a fistfight? I'm not sure I want to subscribe to your self defense theorems.

Wyrmalla wrote:

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
. I think the all those Jews that got slaughtered would have been better off with guns.

No, they'd have died all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_uprising
Those guys had plenty of guns.

Yeah, I think that in the battle between firearms and tanks the tanks'll always come out on top. Luckily the right to own a tank wasn't written into the constitution as well. =P

Actually it is. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear pistols, it says arms. Tanks fall under the umbrella of arms, there's just no one willing to campaign for selling tanks in Alabama.

ChocolateGork wrote:Im pretty sure that a million armed jews would have been quite a problem

That's not how it happened.
The nazis didn't get elected one day and the next just go "Right, off to the ovens with you".
There were a series of progressively more severe rules, eventually certain families were picked for "relocation"(resisting which is further proof of how insideous and wicked the jewish plague was). This was a time when many Germans genuinely thought that jews were seeking to undermine the strength of Germany, if Jews shot at soldiers and policemen if anything it would have hastened their demise.

Joey wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:Im pretty sure that a million armed jews would have been quite a problem

That's not how it happened.
The nazis didn't get elected one day and the next just go "Right, off to the ovens with you".
There were a series of progressively more severe rules,

So history isn't completely lost on you. You just conveniently ignore that one of those rules was outlawing the ownership of weapons by Jews.

AustonT wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
. I think the all those Jews that got slaughtered would have been better off with guns.

No, they'd have died all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_uprising
Those guys had plenty of guns.

Yeah, I think that in the battle between firearms and tanks the tanks'll always come out on top. Luckily the right to own a tank wasn't written into the constitution as well. =P

Actually it is. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear pistols, it says arms. Tanks fall under the umbrella of arms, there's just no one willing to campaign for selling tanks in Alabama.

Well it was made to allow for a militia to be founded so that makes a kind of sence. But by arms that would mean that someone could technically stick a Naval Destroyer in thei nearest lake or have a few misiles in their garden right? Britain used to have laws where everyman needed to own a bow and train with it weekly, but we got rid of those (ok we still technically need to train with a bow). I think the whole American ideal of "freedom" has kind of messed up that old law a little. =/

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Don't mean to sound cruel, but I don't really care that much for what goes on in America. Years of watching presidential elections has bored the backside off me I have no stake in American society, so if they want to walk around with guns, that is for them to decide. Obviously, I have a keen interest in American history, but if they want to shoot the hell out of each other, then good luck to them. I say this in the best possible sense.
When I go there on holiday I respect their laws and respect their society. If I lived there I would campaign for an end to gun ownership, but I don't so I'm not.
We in the UK need to roll up our sleeves and fix our own problems.

Yet here you are arguing about US gun control. If you don't care why are you posting on the topic and not mere4ly non-US targets? You know why? Because you're jealous of our utter domination of processed foods. Admit it. Its the first step in recovery.

Wyrmalla wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Wyrmalla wrote:

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
. I think the all those Jews that got slaughtered would have been better off with guns.

No, they'd have died all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_uprising
Those guys had plenty of guns.

Yeah, I think that in the battle between firearms and tanks the tanks'll always come out on top. Luckily the right to own a tank wasn't written into the constitution as well. =P

Actually it is. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear pistols, it says arms. Tanks fall under the umbrella of arms, there's just no one willing to campaign for selling tanks in Alabama.

Well it was made to allow for a militia to be founded so that makes a kind of sence. But by arms that would mean that someone could technically stick a Naval Destroyer in thei nearest lake or have a few misiles in their garden right? Britain used to have laws where everyman needed to own a bow and train with it weekly, but we got rid of those (ok we still technically need to train with a bow). I think the whole American ideal of "freedom" has kind of messed up that old law a little. =/

There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.