My thoughts about Diedel's misplaced gun thread

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:16 pm

1) What your quoted was meant to be a joke- if you are anti-gun, then you had no place reading the thread. (The topic even warned you)

2) While guns are more commonly used in crime in the U.S. than in Canada, crime rates are similar. The only difference between U.S. criminals and Canadian criminals is that either the U.S. criminals have more resolve, thus are willing to use violence more and fear the consequences less (pointing to a problem with the justice department, not gun possesion.), or the U.S. criminals are more resourceful and have deeper pockets, thus more criminals have guns available to use in their crimes. (The other obvious option would be differing gun control laws, but you pointed out that they are similar.)

3) I'm not sure what you where trying to prove, but it seems to me that you have (indirectly) proven something that I completely agree with: American criminals (as well as all other criminals) don't need to have guns... but more gun control doesn't fix that, better law enforcement fixes that.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:20 pm

There are over 23,000 failed, illegal gun laws to date, and yet people-control advocates want more. Puhlease.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:22 pm

The subject has been beaten to death. One does not need to look far to see strict anti-gun laws in action and their results. Just look at Britain. Crime has gone UP. Now they want to ban knives. After that what else will they ban?

MDX · Post by **MDX** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:13 pm

Whenever you ban ANYTHING from ANYONE, someone will find a way around it. In the case of guns, crooks will find way around anti-gun laws, and will take full advantage of the fact that now every innocent civilian in the USA is unarmed. Result: crime rate goes up.

I am in full opposition to gun control laws. I don't believe that "guns kill people" bull. To demonstrate why, let's turn to Descent.

Start a game, but don't touch the controls. AT ALL. What happens? Nothing! Now push fire/pull the trigger. Now what happens?

See my point?

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:13 pm

MDX wrote:a game, but don't touch the controls. AT ALL. What happens? Nothing! Now push fire/pull the trigger. Now what happens?

See my point?

hmmm... but if you wouldn't have any weapons (or no energy left), you also wouldn't kill anyone, you could push fire as much as you want.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:21 pm

hmmm... but if you wouldn't have any weapons (or no energy left), you also wouldn't kill anyone, you could push fire as much as you want.

The difference being- in d3, if there were no weapons, you couldn't aquire any.That's not so in real life.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:48 pm

Hax0rs would be the only ones with the weapons in the end.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:42 am

Did you really have to start a thread about this?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:37 am

Jeff250 wrote:Hax0rs would be the only ones with the weapons in the end.

x2

Floyd · Post by **Floyd** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:15 am

while i haven't read diedel's thread, since it got edileted, i'd rather moved the thread than to censor it. or is this feature deinstalled at the dbb?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:15 am

x55.95

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:28 am

snoopy wrote:1) What your quoted was meant to be a joke- if you are anti-gun, then you had no place reading the thread. (The topic even warned you)

i havn't bother reading the original thread. since it DID warn me to stay out, i didn't feel like fighting my way in. it obviously wouldn't have been my cup of tea.

however, if i were so inclined to state my opinion within it, then i could AND I WOULD. there is nothing stopping me. it would be considered discrimanation if i wern't allowed to post my opinion in the thread. i would only have to obey the rules of the CAFE, and there are no such rules there (iirc) that discriminate based solely on your brand of political ideology.

just some ethics to ponder eh.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:53 am

If you want to take it there, and be the *ss hole... I rather see it as an occassion to politely respect someone's wishes about a personal post/topic.

The guy's got a new toy. He's not discussing politics.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:02 am

This is excellent news! So I can request no dissenting opinions in my threads, and my request will be honored? I think nothing but positive and encouraging posts directed at me will increase my self esteem greatly. Or does this only work for moderators?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:32 am

If you want to rant about your ideology but request no dissenting opinions, your request won't be honored. We call that "preaching", and preaching is usually met with ridicule.

If you want to talk about how you picked up a new [item], and you want to request that nobody bring their anti-[item] bias into your thread (but that they can debate it elsewhere), go for it.

Example items you might want to talk about but avoid debate:
- new gaming console
- new mac / windows box / linux box / ...
- new firearm / sword / battle axe
- new stash of medicinal "herbs"

In any of those cases, you're sharing something about your personal life for those who might be interested. But it's also the sort of topic that you just expect someone to start crap over, so you can request at the start that they take it elsewhere.

I think we can all tell when someone makes an unreasonable request for people not to disagree with them (and we don't have to be so pedantic as to require a posted list of criteria for determining this.) If the request is reasonable, and the person deserves that level of respect, show it to them by honoring their request. That's not just a Cafe rule, that's a board rule -- and it's something many of the mods will enforce.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:15 pm

good going restating everything i already said as if it somehow disagreed with the rules, you geniuses.

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroid wrote:since it DID warn me to stay out, i didn't feel like fighting my way in. it obviously wouldn't have been my cup of tea.

this means i respected the request geniuses.

roidddddddddddddddddddddddd wrote:i would only have to obey the rules of the CAFE

this means anything i WOULD have said would be as non-political as i could make it - so thereby being cafe-friendly.

not sure what you guys are getting so huffy about, i didn't even read the thread. let alone post in it. why the hell would i? i regard your gun opinions as garbage. I've got better things to do that wander into an NRA convention holding a placard - which is what it would have been like walking into that thread.

so cool your guns and go eat a lollypop

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:06 pm

don't ignore obvious clauses

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:47 pm

But you also said

if i were so inclined to state my opinion within it, then i could AND I WOULD. there is nothing stopping me

which is false, or at least misleading. You'd state your opinion, only you'd make it totally non-political and therefore not objectionable? Then what's the point of even telling us that you'd have stated your opinion?

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:50 am

my posts are ment to be taken as a whole package.
that one segment is only misleading if you ignore or skim over the important clause after it. i was unaware skimming was becomming acceptable.

i don't write my posts to be half understood and then attacked.

Lothar wrote:You'd state your opinion, only you'd make it totally non-political and therefore not objectionable?...

uh... yes? everyone who participates in the cafe knows the rules lothar.

Lothar wrote:...Then what's the point of even telling us that you'd have stated your opinion?

if the rules bother your logic, it's none of my concern.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:00 am

OK, roid, maybe you can clear this up for me.

Xciter's original comment was that anti-gun people need not read or comment in the thread. This was clearly intending to tell people "this is not the place for debate."

You said you'd read and comment anyway, if you wanted to. In light of the original comment, I don't see anyway to read your statement other than "I'd have come in and made a political statement and turned it into debate, and you couldn't stop me because there's no rule against it."

But now you're saying you wouldn't have commented in a political way because that would be against the Cafe rules. In other words, you weren't talking about making a political statement in the first place.

So I'm just wondering... why even tell us that you'd post anyway and that we can't stop you, if you're not talking about posting anything anyone would want to stop? Why tell us "you can't stop me" if you're not talking about what Xciter said he'd stop? The only possibility I can see is that you're being pedantic about Xciter's choice of language -- that you think he should've said "no anti-gun comments" rather than "no anti-gun people".

Honestly... do you think Xciter would delete your comment if you came in and said "that's a nice looking gun" just because he knows you're anti-gun? Do you think he honestly meant "anti-gun people"? Or do you think, maybe, he actually meant "keep the anti-gun COMMENTARY out of this thread" and that it should've been completely clear that's what he meant?

I, for one, don't think anybody's comment would get deleted no matter what their ideology was, as long as they didn't try to turn the thread into a gun debate. So it seems like you're fighting a non-existant opponent here, and then getting upset that people don't understand what you're talking about.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:09 am

why do you hate the DBB so much?

my methods may be quizotic to you, but i know what i'm doing.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:57 am

roid wrote: my methods may be quizotic to you, but i know what i'm doing.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:59 am

Is everything going according to plan?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:11 am

Lothar wrote:You'd state your opinion, only you'd make it totally non-political and therefore not objectionable?

heh, this is exactly how I would define the typical post from roid. Though he certaintly did slip up when he went off insulting klingons here...shoulda gone with the wookees.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:55 pm

The problem imo is your culture of gun use - and "love".

Imo it's just to easy to get and use a gun in the U.S. And it's no problem to get guns in the U.S. that are neither suited for self-defense nor for hunting (e.g. semi-automatic guns) - forbidden or not.

What really makes me wonder is that some here believe taking away their guns would take away their freedom. There are so many restraints to individual freedom, and most of them make perfect sense. You don't complain about these.

Oh well, I know this is a fruit- and pointless discussion anyway. Have your guns already - you're far, far away, and I will probably never again go to the U.S. I definitely don't feel safe there: Neither from your criminals, nor from your police or jurisdiction. There is way to much arbitrariness there.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:26 pm

You also shouldn't feel safe from our moderators, who close threads for arbitrary reasons like "this was dead two weeks ago"...

My thoughts about Diedel's misplaced gun thread

My thoughts about Diedel's misplaced gun thread

Re: My thoughts about Diedel's misplaced gun thread