DescentBB

Ferno wrote:

Duper wrote:common Roid. We've all been around this block enough times to know where each of us stand. We are all aware of Church history. Nuances aren't going to make any difference. That chart proves nothing other than someone hates the church.

Quite frankly, I'm as tired of people pointing to ancient church history and going "SEE??? SEE???" and religating to every Christian today as I am TB posting on Islamic fundamentalism.

If you truely understood the teachings and deeds of Christ, you would really understand how silly all the anti-Christian rhetoric is. And btw, the guys killing doctors and the like are NOT Christian. And I DON'T CARE what "YOU" think a Christian is (the whole semantic thing is foolish). ANYONE that has real brain can figure that out.

Yes, because I'm sure history has nothing to do with anything...

It doesn't matter what we do because that was then and this is now.

..classic.

Roid, let me see if I understand. A guy in Australia goes in a school yard and caps a bunch of kids using his trusty shot gun. The result now is no one can own rifles or shotguns in Aussie land. Social liberals and anti-gunners applaud the enactment of the ban on gun ownership. Anyone now caught with possession of a firearm goes where?

In America crime goes up and people want more tougher laws and a ban on going easy on criminals. Laws are passed along with tougher guidelines for sentencing resulting in a growth spurt in prison populations. No one complains as crime then starts dropping yet along you come Roid and insinuate that Social conservatives are behind this when in fact all people wanted less crime.

In America's case, the laws were passed as a result of popular pressure to get criminals off the streets. In Australia's case a law was passed because a select few wanted it. So where is America somehow in a worse moral position than Australia?

Personally, I think guns were the STUPIDEST invention that ever existed. They make it so easy to take lives, be it human or otherwise. I don't believe in taking lives. I think a ban on all firearms is one of the best things that could happen anywhere. At least swords were honourable.

Chris wrote:"You hate death!?! You're a carnivore!"

Pepper wrote:"Yeah, but the preadator respects the prey. Killing for the sake of killing isn't showing respect."

If you're wondering, that's modified dialogue from one of the many novels I'm writing. But it does illustrate my point.

Bans are for honest people. When you figure out how to remove them from criminals, let me know.

Spidey wrote:Bans are for honest people. When you figure out how to remove them from criminals, let me know.

X2

The point is that a criminal could get arrested for HAVING a gun before he/she actually shoots anyone.

Alter-Fox wrote:The point is that a criminal could get arrested for HAVING a gun before he/she actually shoots anyone.

To bad that's not what happens in real life. In real life they get busted after they shoot someone, if they get caught. Also, I have no problem with the taking of a human life when if I have no other choice short of running away.

Alter-Fox wrote:The point is that a criminal could get arrested for HAVING a gun before he/she actually shoots anyone.

I don’t even want to know how law enforcement will know when someone has a gun…

Alter-Fox wrote:The point is that a criminal could get arrested for HAVING a gun before he/she actually shoots anyone.

I sense the naive meter rising.

I agree. That was a stupid thing to say. I did mention that it's not just HUMAN life I'm worried about. I can't even play a video game that has blood.

Wow, I'm gone for a few months and this Alter Fox moron shows up.

the best way to deal with guns is to require everyone have them.

I had to crush a bird with a rock today.

Duper wrote:I had to crush a bird with a rock today.

...
I hope for your sake that there's some sort of self-defence backstory to this.

TIGERassault wrote:

Duper wrote:I had to crush a bird with a rock today.

...
I hope for your sake that there's some sort of self-defence backstory to this.

For all you know he killed a Turkey for dinner. Why throw a threat out there without knowing the facts, in fact even if you knew the facts, and you disagree with them why throw a threat out on the table?
I am sure he was linking using rocks in place of guns for hunting if guns are taken away from us. But as usual you take it to the extreme and assume the worst possible reason.
So O.K., lets here your guff abut the evil U.S.A. and all the harm our beliefs cause the world and how we should change our ways and how useless we are, blah blah blah

Edit:

I will save you the trouble of bashing the U.S. and its people and just quote some of your latest comments.

TIGERassault wrote:Well, they're good except for the extra ones in America. They seem to be "live in fear of terrorists" "hate between people of different races for a different reason is much worse than normal".
Oh, and I really hate the worldwide one, "sex is really good, and a great way to show your love". But that's because I'm a teenager, so I can tell how much bad that shift has done already!

TIGERassault wrote:Oh wait, I've heard a term for something like this. I think they're calling it "Law and Order" nowadays. It's the kinda stuff that's stopped your neighbours from stabbing you 17 times in the back and stealing all your possessions.

TIGERassault wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:We can either have war between nations, or war within nations. Although the within nations war is not called war, it is called holocausts.

Wait, so the American War of Independance was a holocaust?

Aggressor Prime wrote:I am aginst all wars, but when they are forced upon us, I would rather have them controlled by people who hate war than people who made war. (Therefore, that is why I supported Bush in both his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans, be it Republicans or Democrats, hate war. And Bush represented both parties when he went into Iraq to end the internal war there and into Afghanistan to end the war that was brought to us.)

.................what?
Newsflash: only time in the last century war was forced upon your country was in WW2, where Japan declared war on you. Every other time, you were the country to declare war.
Oh, except mabye WW1 too, I'm not sure what part the USA had in it.

Aggressor Prime wrote: @TIGERassault
Radical Muslims (really Muslims that don't obey their faith conservatively) are destructive and poverty is inevitable, guess which issue TIGERassault is most concerned about?

Poverty is inevitable because it's relative to how much regular people get, and because it relies on how much money you have when tribals can get on fine without. However, hunger is a considerably more solvable problem, and the reason I keep wanting to promote it is because even you lot can help to stop it instead of discussing, but doing squat-all about, issues like these ones.

Aggressor Prime wrote:You cannot end poverty. Communism will only lead to world poverty. The only way to ensure progress is to protect Capitalism. Any deviation from Capitalism will lead to the destruction of the human race.

Hay folks, guess which country's propaganda Prime grew up in?

TIGERassault wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Not a government, they're government. They're American citizens, TIGERassault, and they have ties with an American organization. America is not truly responsible for the sufferings of citizens of other nations, though we are concerned as a matter of compassion (let's hope that's the motivation). American citizens come first. It only makes sense.

To me, what you just said sounds like "They were born in the USA, therefore they're superior to everyone else". That's EXACTLY what it sounds like, actually! Which makes you a full representation of that stereotypical self-centered American. Doesn't that make you feel great inside?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I know that the majority around here seem to. At least nothing particularly eyebrow-raising as made the popular news. I don't know what the percentage is for other countries. Unlike some folks on here, I'm not tapped in to a universal consciousness.

Read up on REAL world affairs, then start joining in on world debates! And remember, the world does not consist solely of North America and the Middle East

woodchip wrote:So where is America somehow in a worse moral position than Australia?

i'm not a nationalist, thus i don't bite on your American vs Australia discussion.

Ah, so a person of the world. Guess if the Chi-coms invaded your neck of the world you would do nothing. Good thing the nationalist American's came along after the Japanese bombed Darwin and looked like they were going to invade dingo land.

ccb056 wrote:Wow, I'm gone for a few months and this Alter Fox moron shows up.

Please don't insult me. I was having an off day, and I posted without thinking. That doesn't usually happen.

Alter-Fox wrote:

ccb056 wrote:Wow, I'm gone for a few months and this Alter Fox moron shows up.

Please don't insult me. I was having an off day, and I posted without thinking. That doesn't usually happen.

Aww come on - we need someone to hold that title, you where just handy.

Sorry for overreacting. It's hard for me to tell the difference between teasing and insulting. Something to do with a genetic disorder. (I'm not allowed to say any more.)

fliptw wrote:the best way to deal with guns is to require everyone have them.

Ah. So the best way to deal with guns is to have everyone shoot everyone else until there are no humans left alive to use the guns. (Purposefully misinterpretted.)

I don't understand how everyone having guns would lead to less people being killed. Could you explain a bit more?

Duper wrote:I had to crush a bird with a rock today.

Carnivore Philosophy: If you have to kill something, at least do it the courtesy of eating it after.

Oh BTW - about the original issue: I think some of the shifts show people having a more open mind and actually thinking about the consequences of what they do, which will be a good thing even after the issues that spawned them are resolved. On the other hand, some of the shifts show people closing their minds and not caring at all about consequences, which will make them more vulnerable to change. I'd like to be optimistic, but if history is doomed to repeat itself, optimism is not realistic.

I vote we just get rid of arms; if people didn't have arms, they couldn't shoot or stab other people.

Dakatsu wrote:I vote we just get rid of arms; if people didn't have arms, they couldn't shoot or stab other people.

TA DA - we go right back to the beginning of the debate.

Dakatsu wrote:I vote we just get rid of arms; if people didn't have arms, they couldn't shoot or stab other people.

But I could still bite you. And then you would bleed to death, because nobody could bandage your wound.

So we basically become wild animals. I like it!

Spidey wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:I vote we just get rid of arms; if people didn't have arms, they couldn't shoot or stab other people.

But I could still bite you. And then you would bleed to death, because nobody could bandage your wound.

Thank you Mr. black knight.

Duper wrote:

Spidey wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:I vote we just get rid of arms; if people didn't have arms, they couldn't shoot or stab other people.

But I could still bite you. And then you would bleed to death, because nobody could bandage your wound.

Thank you Mr. black knight.

I wonder how many people here have actually SEEN Monty Python. They just seem so serious.

Ni!!!!

Ni!!!!

Alter-Fox wrote:

fliptw wrote:the best way to deal with guns is to require everyone have them.

Ah. So the best way to deal with guns is to have everyone shoot everyone else until there are no humans left alive to use the guns. (Purposefully misinterpretted.)

I don't understand how everyone having guns would lead to less people being killed. Could you explain a bit more?

If a criminal about to break into your house knows you don't have a gun, in he comes, and he can do anything he wants to you, your wife, and your daughter.
If a criminal about to break into your house knows that everyone and their mother has a gun, and knows how to use it...guess what? He's not breaking into that house!

If a bank robber knows that not a single person in line has a gun, he's free to do whatever he pleases to whoever is inside.
If a bank robber knows that the majority of people in line probably have guns, and know how to use them..well..would YOU rob that bank?

I could go on and on. If you could be shot at any time for situations like above, there wouldn't be situations like above. Nowhere near as many, at least (there are always the complete morons).

Here, there are a decent amount of armed people, but the laws in this country are so screwed up that if you use force to stop a violent criminal from killing, etc., YOU go to jail too! You save some girl from being raped, and you get raped in prison instead (and the girl probably sues you because you saw her naked or something...)

And if you shoot an intruder who does not have a gun, you can be charged with excessive use of force regardless of the circumstances.

Keep a baseball bat handy or mace or maybe a personal Tazer (i don't know the laws surrounding this item)

I'm not for taking guns away, but most people are not equipped much less trained to deal with guns in a high stress situation.

There was an incident when someone in British Columbia was killed with a taser, so I'm not sure if that's such a good idea either. It's probably more safe for everyone involved than a gun, though.

Duper wrote:And if you shoot an intruder who does not have a gun, you can be charged with excessive use of force regardless of the circumstances.

May depend on what state you are in. Most states you have every right to shoot a intruder unless:
1) Intruder comply s with your command to stop advancing
2) Leaves your domicile before you shoot

Someone violently breaking in to your house, or who is in it does not obligate you to verify if intruder has a weapon or not. Read up on "Castle Doctrine"

Duper wrote:Keep a baseball bat handy or mace or maybe a personal Tazer (i don't know the laws surrounding this item)

Sure way to die if intruder has a firearm and the house is dark

Duper wrote:I'm not for taking guns away, but most people are not equipped much less trained to deal with guns in a high stress situation.

But then the bad guy is not any more prepared than you are.

Unlike SOME PEOPLE, I'm not pro-death.

Alter-Fox wrote:Unlike SOME PEOPLE, I'm not pro-death.

I am not pro death either - which is why I carry a pistol, and have a pit bull that roams my home and sleeps at the foot of my bed. I am very pro life when it comes to my own.
Up untill 2 months ago I lived in a gang infested area of East St. Paul MN, self protection in that area is a must.

My boy Ralph

Cuda68 wrote:

Alter-Fox wrote:Unlike SOME PEOPLE, I'm not pro-death.

I am not pro death either - which is why I carry a pistol, and have a pit bull that roams my home and sleeps at the foot of my bed. I am very pro life when it comes to my own.
Up untill 2 months ago I lived in a gang infested area of East St. Paul MN, self protection in that area is a must.

My boy Ralph

I'm terrified of all dogs (except foxes). I have some sort of phobia.

woodchip wrote:

Duper wrote:And if you shoot an intruder who does not have a gun, you can be charged with excessive use of force regardless of the circumstances.

May depend on what state you are in. Most states you have every right to shoot a intruder unless:
1) Intruder comply s with your command to stop advancing
2) Leaves your domicile before you shoot

Someone violently breaking in to your house, or who is in it does not obligate you to verify if intruder has a weapon or not. Read up on "Castle Doctrine"

Duper wrote:Keep a baseball bat handy or mace or maybe a personal Tazer (i don't know the laws surrounding this item)

Sure way to die if intruder has a firearm and the house is dark

Duper wrote:I'm not for taking guns away, but most people are not equipped much less trained to deal with guns in a high stress situation.

But then the bad guy is not any more prepared than you are.

some 80% of people shot in thier homes during a forced entry are done so with their own gun. Keep it locked up away from the kids. Its also law in many states to have a gun secured with a trigger lock or some other device and/or means. It's also just good common sense. It would be kinda silly to keep a gun secured and use it for "defense".

Really woodchip, have you ever had CS gas in your eyes? There isn't much else you can do but hit the floor. Ask anyone that's been in the service. If you REALLY WANT to keep a loaded, unlocked gun by your bed, knock yourself out. It's your right as a US citizen. (provided there aren't any local or regional laws regulating that circumstance) It's just not a very good idea. Seems you're bent on doing it regardless.

Duper wrote:Really woodchip, have you ever had CS gas in your eyes? There isn't much else you can do but hit the floor. Ask anyone that's been in the service.

Yes I have Duper. Back in 1967 when I was in boot camp, we went into a tent, CS was released and we had to sing the Marine Corp Hymn standing at attention before putting on the gas mask. None of us had the luxury of hitting the floor. Next question?

It really depends on the area you live in. Right now I am in the Boulder Co area. This area is mostly tree hugger stoners, so its a very safe area as compared to East St. Paul MN. In E. St. Paul there are break ins, push ins and drive by shootings not to mention the crack heads who push there faces up against the window of your home to see if there is anything to snatch near the window. In E. St. Paul I had the dog and a loaded shot gun handy. It's almost a war zone over there.
So common sense dictates actions.

Agreed. And it’s also a good idea to make your home hard to break into, giving you time to load, if needed.

Security systems are also good at keeping you from getting caught off guard.