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.

Gitzbitah wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So the answer to how a woman is going to protect herself and her kids is "I don't have a clue." Gotcha.

I find it ironic that an adult is asking a teenager on how to protect his family without the use of a gun, or is the humour lost on some?

I think I see your confusion, Squig_herder. We are not talking about ways of securing your home- that's more in the Zombie Attack! thread. We're talking about what your options are if someone is inside your house, having broken through whatever passive defenses that you have in place.

If you walk into the middle of a 13+ page thread and declare a response childish, be prepared to offer alternatives. That's called a conversation.

So, someone has broken into your home, against the odds, and through your space-age security materials- what now?

And note the query back is what is woman with kids to do, not someone who has delusions of being a Ninja/Pirate.

Gitzbitah wrote:If you walk into the middle of a 13+ page thread and declare a response childish, be prepared to offer alternatives. That's called a conversation.

So, someone has broken into your home, against the odds, and through your space-age security materials- what now?

I have been following this thread from the start, I am not blind nor ignorant of the thread and its contents.

As the odd adage goes: "prevention is better than a cure"

Reason and negotiation are the strongest weapons against people invading your home. Guns will only provoke a response, and if they too are armed then you are only asking for someone it pull the trigger. A stray bullet from either of the two parties during the show down can result in death and later further charges [depending on who won].



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:1. You brought the point up.
2. So a person who isn't made of money to James Bondize their house is SOL? I'll keep my firearms and my opinion then thanks.
If you have access to firearms then you should avail yourself of them for protective purposes.

Yes that I did, forgive me for being for forthcoming, I didn't mean it as a personal afront

You do choose the firearms for economic reasons?

I have access to fire at my house, but I would not use them to deter someone off our property

Squig_herder wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:If you walk into the middle of a 13+ page thread and declare a response childish, be prepared to offer alternatives. That's called a conversation.

So, someone has broken into your home, against the odds, and through your space-age security materials- what now?

I have been following this thread from the start, I am not blind nor ignorant of the thread and its contents.

As the odd adage goes: "prevention is better than a cure"

Reason and negotiation are the strongest weapons against people invading your home. Guns will only provoke a response, and if they too are armed then you are only asking for someone it pull the trigger. A stray bullet from either of the two parties during the show down can result in death and later further charges [depending on who won].

Ah. My apologies, it seemed you were approaching a very different scenario than the one being discussed. Prevention is all fine and good, but every fortress has its weak point. The downside of every defensive measure is that given enough time, it can be defeated.

Am I to understand that if someone cut their way through your high-tech armored windows and was prowling around inside your house at 2AM, your response would be to politely ask them to leave and explain that it isn't worth their trouble? You may have an excellent case, since your safeguards cost more than the rest of the house, but somehow I doubt that the average home invader is going to be impressed by your rhetoric and logic.

Squig_herder wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:If you walk into the middle of a 13+ page thread and declare a response childish, be prepared to offer alternatives. That's called a conversation.

So, someone has broken into your home, against the odds, and through your space-age security materials- what now?

I have been following this thread from the start, I am not blind nor ignorant of the thread and its contents.

As the odd adage goes: "prevention is better than a cure"

Reason and negotiation are the strongest weapons against people invading your home. Guns will only provoke a response, and if they too are armed then you are only asking for someone it pull the trigger. A stray bullet from either of the two parties during the show down can result in death and later further charges [depending on who won].



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:1. You brought the point up.
2. So a person who isn't made of money to James Bondize their house is SOL? I'll keep my firearms and my opinion then thanks.
If you have access to firearms then you should avail yourself of them for protective purposes.

Yes that I did, forgive me for being for forthcoming, I didn't mean it as a personal afront

You do choose the firearms for economic reasons?

I have access to fire at my house, but I would not use them to deter someone off our property

Nor would I, thats nonsensical. You brought up the point that "this is how Australians feel about the US" really? I missed the polling.
Then you made the statement there are other options but YOU HAVE YET TO PUT ONE UP. That speaks volumes.

EDIT: I realized I am get snarky. I apologize. I go from zero to CRYHAVOCANDLETTHESLAUGHTERBEGIN!!! the moment I think about the safety of Wife/Kids/Doggies.

Grignard wrote:

Trasvi wrote:I'm sure I'll get ridiculed by you gun-lovers, but...
Is it possible that if no-one had guns, you wouldn't get into this bad situation in the first place?
Where I live, in Australia, there are very few gun-related crimes. Most are the province of organised bike gangs. Armed robbery and assault is rare. Home break-ins are done during the day whilst the home owners are at work.
For protection, I keep a maglite next to my bed - its 20" of steel and also doubles as a torch! The house has monitored perimeter sensors, so that if someone DOES break a window or open a door, an alarm will sound and the police will be notified instantly.


The mentality in Australia when hearing about the gun-related crime in America is simply 'if no-one had a gun, there would be no problem'.

Number one, you're assuming all "gun lovers" are using their arms for defense, and that they agree on castle doctrine. As you can see from my posts, that isnt necessarily true.

Furthermore, if they made every firearm illegal in the US tomorrow, they wouldn't disappear. Firearms have always been present in the US, and there were no national laws regulating them until 1935, and none with any real impact for most people until 1969. I don't know if there is any proof those laws initiated a drop in crime, or even gun crime. I think people are going to have to have community values if there is going to be a drop in such things.

My understanding is that you can still get a gun in Australia, though they've gotten more restrictive as of late.

Most importantly, why should I have to surrender my pistol that I enjoy shooting because of someone else doing something wrong?

It is not illegal to have guns in Australia. One must provide a valid reason, which self-defence is not. You must be registered for a gun, and there are specific laws about where and how you can store it (in a safe, unloaded, with ammunition in a separate location).
I can possibly see that some people enjoy shooting pistols or rifles as sport/hunting. Where are semi-automatics, sub-machine guns etc even remotely useful? These weapons were banned and over 700000 of them destroyed in Australia, and since then gun-related homicides have fallen by over 50%. Now in Australia only 16% of homicides are caused by guns, compared to 65% in the US. By far the majority of gun-related deaths in Australia are suicides. The reality is that removing guns, or at least limiting their access, was extremely successful at reducing death rates.

Now if you want to use your rifle for hunting, or sport shooting - then sure, why not? But if more restriction can be shown to have such a huge effect, can you really oppose it for the sake of a sport?

Gitzbitah wrote:Am I to understand that if someone cut their way through your high-tech armored windows and was prowling around inside your house at 2AM, your response would be to politely ask them to leave and explain that it isn't worth their trouble? You may have an excellent case, since your safeguards cost more than the rest of the house, but somehow I doubt that the average home invader is going to be impressed by your rhetoric and logic.

Local law enforcement can deal with trespassers and stalkers, do you not trust the arm of the law in your region?

No matter how strong i make my walls, this donkey-cave keeps ruining them.

Squig_herder wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:Am I to understand that if someone cut their way through your high-tech armored windows and was prowling around inside your house at 2AM, your response would be to politely ask them to leave and explain that it isn't worth their trouble? You may have an excellent case, since your safeguards cost more than the rest of the house, but somehow I doubt that the average home invader is going to be impressed by your rhetoric and logic.

Local law enforcement can deal with trespassers and stalkers, do you not trust the arm of the law in your region?

Trespassers and stalkers can absolutely be handled by the local law. They're outside of your home, and no immediate threat to you.

If there is someone in the house with me, I don't think waiting for them and hoping the home invader will leave me alone until they get there is the safest course of action for everyone in the home. Of the 5 rooms in my house, 2 are occupied bedrooms. You could carefully search all of the rooms in under 5 minutes, which I imagine is less than the response time of local law enforcement. In all fairness, I've never had a reason to call them and don't know how quickly they would respond.

Squig_herder wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:Am I to understand that if someone cut their way through your high-tech armored windows and was prowling around inside your house at 2AM, your response would be to politely ask them to leave and explain that it isn't worth their trouble? You may have an excellent case, since your safeguards cost more than the rest of the house, but somehow I doubt that the average home invader is going to be impressed by your rhetoric and logic.

Local law enforcement can deal with trespassers and stalkers, do you not trust the arm of the law in your region?

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Gitzbitah wrote: If there is someone in the house with me, I don't think waiting for them and hoping the home invader will leave me alone until they get there is the safest course of action for everyone in the home. Of the 5 rooms in my house, 2 are occupied bedrooms. You could carefully search all of the rooms in under 5 minutes, which I imagine is less than the response time of local law enforcement. In all fairness, I've never had a reason to call them and don't know how quickly they would respond.

If you were to pull a gun on the said home invader, would that really help? If he too is armed with a gun and decides to draw it, what would happen then? You only increase the risk of harm to occupants of the building by bring larger risks into the equation

ShivanAngel wrote:No matter how strong i make my walls, this donkey-cave keeps ruining them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Squig_herder wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote: If there is someone in the house with me, I don't think waiting for them and hoping the home invader will leave me alone until they get there is the safest course of action for everyone in the home. Of the 5 rooms in my house, 2 are occupied bedrooms. You could carefully search all of the rooms in under 5 minutes, which I imagine is less than the response time of local law enforcement. In all fairness, I've never had a reason to call them and don't know how quickly they would respond.

If you were to pull a gun on the said home invader, would that really help? If he too is armed with a gun and decides to draw it, what would happen then? You only increase the risk of harm to occupants of the building by bring larger risks into the equation

Ancient Budha say "It is better to have a gun and be equal to the armed intruder, then not and be at his mercy."

There's the difference of our opinions. I tend to view an intruder with a gun on the loose as more of a threat than a confrontation.

Pulling a gun wouldn't help at all. Firing a gun at him would. The bullet's the key part in this equation.

You are quite correct that giving him the chance to respond is far too risky. That's why I advocate taking his intrusion as proof of guilt, and firing without warning until such time as you are sure that the threat is neutralized. Then, put one more in the intruder to be on the safe side and see if this intruder has survived his or her ordeal.


(edited for gender neutrality)

This is something that's been on my mind a lot in the past few months. Between this thread and a story in my local paper, it's also an issue that seems to be coming up a lot in public discourse. I've never owned or even fired a gun although I am beginning to strongly consider it. My girlfriend and I have been talking about taking some lessons at the range near my house, which sounds like a good start.

I live in a large US city with a fairly high crime rate, but in the ten years I've been here I've only had or or two occasions where I've even felt remotely threatened, to be honest. I think my interest in gun ownership is probably 90% ideological, which I suppose is further anecdotal evidence of America's gun culture.

Just to shake up the pot, I should mention that I'm left-leaning on almost every political issue, although I consider myself an independent (for whatever that's worth). If we got into a political discussion I'm pretty sure I'd be considered a liberal.

Guitardian wrote:I accept that people have a right to use tools. It is kind of in our nature, and what makes us capable of doing things. Personally I prefer not even thinking about personal protection, as you never know what can happen, and I have a much greater chance of being killed by a car with a bad driver than in a random shooting.

I don't need protection because I don't have enemies out to get me. However I have done some sport shooting picking bottles off a tree with my friend's old WW2 rifle and yeah it's a fun afternoon. Of course we weren't trying to shoot at anyone, but then again, neither was Dick 'the dick' Cheney when he blew half of his buddies face off (assumption... maybe he was trying to).

My take on guns is that everyone should have the right to have one, but everyone should also have the right to not feel they need one based on the propeganda of a paranoid society.


It is not a healthy way of going about life being scared of everyone. I get myself in situations all the time where someoone may be beligerant or aggressive towards me and I think it is much easier to use common sense and rationality and use words instead of feeling threatened and feeling I need a deadly weapon. In some sense, I believe the use of a weapon to enfore your will is just cowardice. If you cannot get the results you want through violence, you are not being violent enough! That is not a mentality I believe we ought to live by.

I don't understand how you can rationalize with anyone who has broken into your house, and I don't see how self defence is cowardice nor that it has anything to do with what we're talking about. I admit that we live in a culture of unreasonable fear though.

Guitardian wrote:
Just the other day I heard this hick redneck at the local hole-in-wall bar bragging to his buddy that he "blasted a groundhog from his moving truck". Is this really something to be proud of? Sometimes I think maybe we've just seen too many action movies and grown up with John Wayne one-liners in our cultural identity.

Well, I think I've heard everything I need to know about your point of view when you describe someone as a "hick redneck" at a local "hole in the wall" bar. Since you were presumably patronizing the very same bar, how are you any better? I bet you started rolling the reasons through your mind that you were better educated and smarter than this individual. Probably made more money and bathed more often too. Are you really that insecure? Furthermore, at least in my state, hunting from a vehicle or shooting across the road is illegal and enforced.

Guitardian wrote:
Ultimately, ownership of any kind of weapon is kind of an act of cowardice and bad judgement. If human relations have to be reduced to an act of overbearing violence for people to get their way then we, as a whole, are just as bad as baboons. Nothing against baboons, they're just stupid and violent.

Most conversations can be resolved by communication. Being in a position where you feel you have to threaten someone with violence in order to "get your way" means you are simply not a good communicator.

Am I a coward and exhibiting bad judgment because I own a hunting rifle, a shotgun, and some pistols and like to hunt, shoot trap, and practice target shooting? Where is the cowardice there?

If someone pulls a knife on someone you should be obligated to talk to them instead of run or use a weapon to defend yourself?

Guitardian wrote:
Those "home security system" commercials further spread the paranoia of our culture, as did old rap videos, cowboy movies, war movies.

So if ADT sells a security system they're playing on paranoia? Someone who owns an alarm system is automatically paranoid? Are people in Europe who have security systems more or less paranoid than Americans? Do they live in a culture of fear too or do you just need to make sure everyone around you knows how much more clear thinking you are than the average redneck American. Why don't you add video games to your crap-list and you can be just like Jack Thompson

Guitardian wrote:
Yeah, I frequently have random guys in black masks smashing the window of my front door so they can get in and menace me, sure. Never happened to me before, but those commercials (probably written by the same people who sell you on 5 star safety ratings on the minivan you have to buy if you love your kids) seem to make it clear that the ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE SO YOU MUST BUY OUR PRODUCT TO DEFEND YOURSELF.

Anything making a claim that it keeps you safe must be a conspiracy to sell more products. Then again, maybe it is, I mean, if I paid an engineer to make my car I was selling safe, shouldn't I tell you? Also, I'm sure all of us see gun commercials on TV all the time telling us we have to buy a .40 Smith to be safe. ( Have you ever seen a commercial for a firearm that wasn't on a hunting show????? Come on.

Guitardian wrote:
I own a wakazashi sword and a crowbar. The former I like because it is a work of art, which I have no intention of using on another person. The latter, I use it as a tool. It is, however not far from my mind that I could take someones skull apart if I needed to. Most people will never in their life need weapons. Shooting arrows at a target with a bow, or hunting for your own food, or pistol ranges can all be fun if that is the intention of ownership of the tool. Keeping it for paranoia purposes is becoming a product of the fear culture who sells it to you, and also causes violent acts to happens by making them in the first place.

Well, I own some handguns because I think they're fun to shoot and interesting to work on. We both own a weapon we enjoy. Good for you. By the way, what exactly is a paranoia purpose? Furthermore you said earlier in the thread that owning a weapon is an act of cowardice. We're not talking out of both sides of our mouth, are we? If I assume a paranoia purpose is carrying a weapon for self defense, then are you saying that everyone who carries something to defend themselves is paranoid? What about a redneck? I'm not sure, you need to clarify that.

Guitardian wrote:
Putting it in perspective though, if we didn't have guns we would use swords, if we didn't have swords we would use sticks, if we didn't have sticks we would use rocks... etc. The problem isn't the tool, just the engrained human condition encouraging dominance. Owning a gun is an act of saying "I WILL get my way or I can kill you". That's not an American problem, that's a human problem.

Thats right. When I'm at the range with friends, hunting, or just discussing firearms I own, what I'm REALLY saying is "Better do what I want, or I'll kill you! Yep, gotta go grab me a burger at the take out, or I'm going to kill you".

More important, what was the entire point of that statement?

I apologize to my fellow Dakkaites. Usually I attempt to be the voice of reason and the centrist viewpoint, but I'm just blown away here by this one. I absolutely have to know how the dumbest poster I have met so far on Dakka can be simultaneously one of the most insulting, condescending, and pedantic posters. It boggles the mind.

Trasvi wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Trasvi wrote:I'm sure I'll get ridiculed by you gun-lovers, but...
Is it possible that if no-one had guns, you wouldn't get into this bad situation in the first place?
Where I live, in Australia, there are very few gun-related crimes. Most are the province of organised bike gangs. Armed robbery and assault is rare. Home break-ins are done during the day whilst the home owners are at work.
For protection, I keep a maglite next to my bed - its 20" of steel and also doubles as a torch! The house has monitored perimeter sensors, so that if someone DOES break a window or open a door, an alarm will sound and the police will be notified instantly.


The mentality in Australia when hearing about the gun-related crime in America is simply 'if no-one had a gun, there would be no problem'.

Number one, you're assuming all "gun lovers" are using their arms for defense, and that they agree on castle doctrine. As you can see from my posts, that isnt necessarily true.

Furthermore, if they made every firearm illegal in the US tomorrow, they wouldn't disappear. Firearms have always been present in the US, and there were no national laws regulating them until 1935, and none with any real impact for most people until 1969. I don't know if there is any proof those laws initiated a drop in crime, or even gun crime. I think people are going to have to have community values if there is going to be a drop in such things.

My understanding is that you can still get a gun in Australia, though they've gotten more restrictive as of late.

Most importantly, why should I have to surrender my pistol that I enjoy shooting because of someone else doing something wrong?

It is not illegal to have guns in Australia. One must provide a valid reason, which self-defence is not. You must be registered for a gun, and there are specific laws about where and how you can store it (in a safe, unloaded, with ammunition in a separate location).
I can possibly see that some people enjoy shooting pistols or rifles as sport/hunting. Where are semi-automatics, sub-machine guns etc even remotely useful? These weapons were banned and over 700000 of them destroyed in Australia, and since then gun-related homicides have fallen by over 50%. Now in Australia only 16% of homicides are caused by guns, compared to 65% in the US. By far the majority of gun-related deaths in Australia are suicides. The reality is that removing guns, or at least limiting their access, was extremely successful at reducing death rates.

Now if you want to use your rifle for hunting, or sport shooting - then sure, why not? But if more restriction can be shown to have such a huge effect, can you really oppose it for the sake of a sport?

I don't question why my semi-automatic pistol is useful. I enjoy shooting it. Who are you to tell me what I should enjoy shooting and what is just "not remotely useful". Thats very condescending. Do you have any data to back up what you're saying? Incidentally, the majority of firearms deaths in the US are also suicides, not homicide. You might view that as a reason to limit firearms, but I view it as a choice.

@gringard

"Thats right. When I'm at the range with friends, hunting, or just discussing firearms I own, what I'm REALLY saying is "Better do what I want, or I'll kill you! Yep, gotta go grab me a burger at the take out, or I'm going to kill you".

--well if someone had a gun I guess I would have to go and get them a burger wouldn't I? If they didn't have a gun I would just have to laugh and say "get your own burger"

More important, what was the entire point of that statement?

"I apologize to my fellow Dakkaites. Usually I attempt to be the voice of reason and the centrist viewpoint, but I'm just blown away here by this one. I absolutely have to know how the dumbest poster I have met so far on Dakka can be simultaneously one of the most insulting, condescending, and pedantic posters. It boggles the mind. "

---arent we full of our own centrism? Yes I must obviously be the dumbest person on the website because the OP asked what people's opinions on guns in America were and I explained my opinion from my point of view, from what I have seen. Do I have to have a gun to express my opinion? Perhaps so. If I had one, I would kill you for calling me dumb... well if you didn't kill me first. Insult slinging on the internet is kind of pointless, as are death threats and, well, anything besides sharing thoughts and ideas. Are mine so worthless to you? I suppose so. That's okay.

Listen to yourself 'centrist'! I was not condescending! (well redneck hick part... but he wasn't hunting, he was just driving around shooting for roadkills... and yes I will condescend down on such behavior) Perhaps he smells better or makes more money because he uses Ax Body Spray or something I don't know, didn't check, don't see why that is even a point to try and point out.


On a purely philosophical level, I maintain my stance that ownership of a weapon as an armament instead of a tool/recreation is an indication of what is wrong with our human condition, not just an 'American' obsession. On a realistic level if it's life or death I, like any one else, will grab whatever I can find and throw it as hard as I can or swing it, or whatever. I don't understand your need to be attacking, but then again maybe that's why I don't understand the percieved need for guns either.

Logic equation part 1: If you don't have one I don't need one
part 2: If you DO have one and I don't, I have to get you a burger

I don't question why my semi-automatic pistol is useful. I enjoy shooting it. Who are you to tell me what I should enjoy shooting and what is just "not remotely useful". Thats very condescending. Do you have any data to back up what you're saying? Incidentally, the majority of firearms deaths in the US are also suicides, not homicide. You might view that as a reason to limit firearms, but I view it as a choice.

Find me a non-automatic target .22 pistol under $2,000...

I would go and get the burger for them, but I would get my own back and stick a bogie in it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/deranged-gunman-opens-fire-on-shooting-range,17468/

Kilkrazy wrote:I would go and get the burger for them, but I would get my own back and stick a bogie in it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/deranged-gunman-opens-fire-on-shooting-range,17468/

How the hell are you able to go crazy at a gun range for 29 minutes...

ShivanAngel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would go and get the burger for them, but I would get my own back and stick a bogie in it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/deranged-gunman-opens-fire-on-shooting-range,17468/

How the hell are you able to go crazy at a gun range for 29 minutes...

No one notices?

Guitardian wrote:@gringard

"Thats right. When I'm at the range with friends, hunting, or just discussing firearms I own, what I'm REALLY saying is "Better do what I want, or I'll kill you! Yep, gotta go grab me a burger at the take out, or I'm going to kill you".

--well if someone had a gun I guess I would have to go and get them a burger wouldn't I? If they didn't have a gun I would just have to laugh and say "get your own burger"

What? I'm not sure I understand. You're presuming that if someone has a tool they're going to use it for a purpose that *you* think they are going to use it. No, if I had a gun and told you to get me a burger, you could still say no get your own and we'd laugh about it. If someone else were to kill you over that, they'd be going to jail. I don't see how a gun necessitates that the owner is going to make demands. Owning a gun doesn't put you above the law.

Guitardian wrote:
More important, what was the entire point of that statement?

"I apologize to my fellow Dakkaites. Usually I attempt to be the voice of reason and the centrist viewpoint, but I'm just blown away here by this one. I absolutely have to know how the dumbest poster I have met so far on Dakka can be simultaneously one of the most insulting, condescending, and pedantic posters. It boggles the mind. "

---arent we full of our own centrism? Yes I must obviously be the dumbest person on the website because the OP asked what people's opinions on guns in America were and I explained my opinion from my point of view, from what I have seen. Do I have to have a gun to express my opinion? Perhaps so. If I had one, I would kill you for calling me dumb... well if you didn't kill me first. Insult slinging on the internet is kind of pointless, as are death threats and, well, anything besides sharing thoughts and ideas. Are mine so worthless to you? I suppose so. That's okay.

I'm sorry, but the only thing I understood about that statement was A. You feel that you were expressing your opinion on the OP's topic B. Insulting someone over the internet is pointless C. You think your opinions are worthless to me.

For A, this has gone off topic a long time ago. B. You're the one that started insulting people and now you're back-pedaling and saying it's pointless to insult people over the internet. C. My statement had nothing to do with your opinions. I have disagreed with Fraz, Gitz, Squig_herder, and several others in this thread alone. There isn't anything wrong with them, they just have different opinions. The problem wasn't opinions it was douchebaggery, on your part.

Guitardian wrote:
Listen to yourself 'centrist'! I was not condescending! (well redneck hick part... but he wasn't hunting, he was just driving around shooting for roadkills... and yes I will condescend down on such behavior) Perhaps he smells better or makes more money because he uses Ax Body Spray or something I don't know, didn't check, don't see why that is even a point to try and point out.


On a purely philosophical level, I maintain my stance that ownership of a weapon as an armament instead of a tool/recreation is an indication of what is wrong with our human condition, not just an 'American' obsession. On a realistic level if it's life or death I, like any one else, will grab whatever I can find and throw it as hard as I can or swing it, or whatever. I don't understand your need to be attacking, but then again maybe that's why I don't understand the percieved need for guns either.

Yes, you were condescending. The use of the term redneck hick and your tone was condescending. You can say an American flag is not red white and blue, but rather green, yellow, and orange, but saying it won't make it so. What I was pointing out that was that by your choice of words you thought you were better than a certain demographic and that it is my opinion that you use that to boost self worth. The term redneck hick has nothing to do with this individual's criminal activity, nor does it have anything to do with firearms, really.

I don't have a "need" for a gun. Its something I have, thats all. Also, your philosophical point is overly pessimistic and unsubstantiated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would go and get the burger for them, but I would get my own back and stick a bogie in it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/deranged-gunman-opens-fire-on-shooting-range,17468/

How the hell are you able to go crazy at a gun range for 29 minutes...

Its the onion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

I don't question why my semi-automatic pistol is useful. I enjoy shooting it. Who are you to tell me what I should enjoy shooting and what is just "not remotely useful". Thats very condescending. Do you have any data to back up what you're saying? Incidentally, the majority of firearms deaths in the US are also suicides, not homicide. You might view that as a reason to limit firearms, but I view it as a choice.

Find me a non-automatic target .22 pistol under $2,000...

I think you could probably find a revolver in .22 for less than that. For what it is worth.

Im sure Bill O'Reilly posts on dakka sometimes...

Frazzled wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would go and get the burger for them, but I would get my own back and stick a bogie in it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/deranged-gunman-opens-fire-on-shooting-range,17468/

How the hell are you able to go crazy at a gun range for 29 minutes...

No one notices?

"OMG i just heard someone unload a clip, between the shots I heard screaming"

"Its probably nothing, I bet you cant hit the target where its cock would be"

Grignard wrote:
I have disagreed with Fraz, Gitz, Squig_herder, and several others in this thread alone. There isn't anything wrong with them, they just have different opinions.

Only on some things. We are in perfect agreement about the weird mixed messages that Guitardian is putting out.
Owning guns is a negative reflection on the human condition, but if I had one I would shoot you for arguing with me? I don't follow your logic, Guitardian.

This post was edited to ameliorate my irascible remarks. My apologies to any offended parties.

Lets all keep it civil people.

I love you all... That's why we own guns

I've got this crazy feeling of dejavu with this topic.

I have only three points to make:

1. Friday night.
2. Beer.
3. Curry.

Awesome!

And...

Chicks in camo bikinis with huge machineguns are like the hottest thing EVER! Gun's and Ammo seems to think so given some of their cover photos. Soldier of Fortune likewise.

Of course my posts are paradoxical, it's a contradictory subject. We need guns (allegedly) to defend our (alleged) freedom, but those same guns allow us to impose our will upon others. If someone kills me with a gun and winds up in jail for it, I am still no less dead. Sucks for me, but at least the last thought as I bleed out could be "that guy has to put up with three hots and a cot at taxpayers expense... sucks for him... oh wait... I'm dying in a minute or so... sucks for me that he had one in the first place"

Would you feel better, Guitardian, if you had been beaten to death with a bicycle chain?