^
See, it is my understanding of people which makes it prudent for me to have guns, rather than to fear guns.

"In a perfect society, guns are superfluous but harmless. In an imperfect society, guns are necessary."

9/19/2006 11:46:24 PM

Quote :

" To Josh8315: Please define "assault weapon." You frequently mention such weapons, so that should be no problem, right? "

A BIG ASS GUN

9/19/2006 11:47:00 PM

^
You really are an idiot.

9/19/2006 11:48:07 PM

you asked me a question.

9/20/2006 12:51:52 AM

OK. Define "big". I want numbers here, and some justification for why guns meeting said criteria are "assault" weapons.

9/20/2006 12:54:56 AM

by big i mean very dangerous

9/20/2006 12:56:04 AM

Define "very dangerous".

9/20/2006 1:01:08 AM

the ability to kill a lot of people fast

9/20/2006 1:01:57 AM

^
How about beaches? Beaches can kill lots of people, real fast.

I've never seen a gun just up and kill someone. I've heard of plenty of people getting pwned by the ocean, though.

9/20/2006 1:04:36 AM

are beaches guns?

9/20/2006 1:04:58 AM

I sense circular reasoning here.

9/20/2006 4:21:34 AM

guns are not bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

9/20/2006 4:22:16 AM

Guns aren't inherently bad, just like nuclear arms aren't inherently bad-people are what makes them such a problem

I know how to shoot and a great deal about rifles and pistols because my father was in the millitary and my grandfather used to hunt, but I don't think I'll ever own a firearm because they are too much of a liability.

There have been many more situations in my life that could have gone horribly wrong if I had a gun anywhere near me, as opposed to occasions where I'd have to use one to save my life or someone else's. If my life got the point where I felt as if I HAD to have a gun to feel safe, I'd move away before I bought a gun.

As diehard as I am about individual rights and protecting the constitution, I also realize just how many lives guns ruin on a daily basis. Something clealy needs to be done about gun related crime in this country, but the way the current system is set up, I really don't even know where to begin.
Personally, I think there would be a hell of a lot less murders and gang related crime if we legalized drugs and banned guns, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

9/20/2006 10:05:38 AM

heh yeah, ill give you pot if you give me handguns

9/20/2006 10:20:59 AM

you give me head if you shut the fuck up?!?!

9/20/2006 10:27:17 AM

when you add something useful or even remotely interesting besides dumb parodies and even dumber remarks you'll be included in the actual conversation.

9/20/2006 5:04:55 PM

I do find myself wondering what Ms. Froman would say if I applied her very words to the current Drug War debate.

9/20/2006 9:41:38 PM

Probably about the same thing. She's still from Cali after all.

The drug war seems to be increasingly unpopular among the gun rights community, at least as far as I can tell from the forums I frequent. We seem to have a lot of libertarian types among us; funny, that.

9/21/2006 12:01:50 AM

To Randy: Thanks for the compliment. That's rare here.

To cyrion (my wayward son): You are so blinded by your failed ideology that you ALWAYS miss the fucking point! I'm not comparing the United States to Rwanda, dammit! (By the way, "US" (sic), as you put it, should only be used adjectivally [e.g. US Army and so on]. In addition, MLA allows "US" without periods, as I use it, but APA does not.) I was comparing instruments that can be used to kill or not kill to instruments that can be used to kill or not kill. Get it? This is usually where Josh8315 posts his incessant "Guns are designed to kill" idiocy. My machete analogy threw a monkey wrench into that shit, though, didn't it? By the way, monkey wrenches can be used as weapons, too.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/bonnie/125970

To Josh8315: Your inability to define an assault weapon is a big part of the problem with the fear of guns in this country. I still have a .22 caliber rifle that my Dad gave me when I was 12 years old; it is a semi-automatic weapon that operates in much the same way so-called assault weapons do. Keep in mind that automatic weapons--what you would probably call "machine guns"--have been banned since 1934. So, what are you REALLY afraid of, Josh8315? Is it that "a homeless" on the Wolfline you mentioned in another thread?

9/21/2006 2:42:36 AM

Quote :

"To cyrion (my wayward son): You are so blinded by your failed ideology that you ALWAYS miss the fucking point! I'm not comparing the United States to Rwanda, dammit! (By the way, "US" (sic), as you put it, should only be used adjectivally [e.g. US Army and so on]. In addition, MLA allows "US" without periods, as I use it, but APA does not.) I was comparing instruments that can be used to kill or not kill to instruments that can be used to kill or not kill. Get it? This is usually where Josh8315 posts his incessant "Guns are designed to kill" idiocy. My machete analogy threw a monkey wrench into that shit, though, didn't it? By the way, monkey wrenches can be used as weapons, too."

this whole know-it-all act about spelling or usage is tired. you arent impressing anyone. you can put (sic) after every little thing you like, but that wont make you any more correct. this is a web forum, not a scholarly journal. i'll expect your next cited source in proper bibliographic notation

i have yet to see anyone agree with your comparisons, even within your own camp. this is because, AGAIN, you are only comparing one dimension of the item. you could have easily included the machete in my discussion of knives, axes, and other tools. (oh no, is it wrong to emphasize with all caps, cuz i just did it....oops i didnt capitalize 'i', i guess that renders my entire point incorrect. oh no i did it again).

9/21/2006 8:53:14 AM

I just wish that the gun debate and drug debates could lay off the stupid semantic arguments about what each object is or isn't. Those are blatant attempts to categorize each intrinsically neutral object as belonging to a false dichomatic subset of moral judgment: usually good or bad. Neither one, like "looting" vs. "foraging" in New Orleans, are feasibly one or the other.

If the guns are bad, we have to determine when and what makes them so. If the guns are good, we are faced with the same dillemma. Same with all weapons. Same with drugs. Same with information about weaknesses in computer systems and company strategies.

If the debate can't properly assess those questions, it never gets anywhere. Its opponents just continue about their merry way with a false impression that an inanimate object "is" morally classifiable in the same way feeding a family in a catastrophe by the only means available "is" when considering the skin tone of the actors. Is it good? Is it bad? Or is it just an object used safely by some and unsafely by others?

Guns don't cause violence. Guns enable more extreme violence, from farther away, and more quickly than other tools that enable or amplify the effects of violent behavior.

But that's no problem in and of itself, is it?

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ...]

9/21/2006 11:29:52 AM

Quote :

"To Josh8315: Your inability to define an assault weapon is a big part of the problem with the fear of guns in this country."

dangerous guns

9/21/2006 11:32:05 AM

what gun is not dangerous if used in a certain way?

damn josh, id expect even a troll like yourself to be able to google some definition of assault rifle, whether it be a semi automatic long gun with a certain magazine capacity or what not...

9/21/2006 11:34:37 AM

stun guns

9/21/2006 11:35:14 AM

if i learn how to shoot a gun, will you let me teach you and then will you kill yourself?

9/21/2006 11:36:40 AM

i would if you knew how to shoot a gun

9/21/2006 11:37:28 AM

Quote :

"stun guns"

Stun guns have a death rate >0

9/21/2006 12:38:45 PM

so what. you could kill a person with water.

9/21/2006 1:09:08 PM

Or a sharpened pencil. I'm sure they've got to train Special Forces to do stuff like that in a bind or something.

9/21/2006 1:33:22 PM

let me tell you a little story about yin and yang........

9/21/2006 2:10:28 PM

I could not care less whether you or anyone else here is impressed or not, cyrion. That's the beauty of TWW: I make my legitimate points, you continually offer your bullshit, and the chips fall where they may.

I hardly know where to begin in addressing your last post, which is rife with ridiculous assertions. But I will give it that old college try.

First, concerning my "know-it-all act," as you put it, I am not sure what you mean. I have never asserted that I know it all or even close to all. By inserting the "sic" adverb, which means "so" or "thus," I simply inform the reader that I have copied a given quotation in its original form. If any syntax errors have been made, it is clear that they were not made by me. Since you are so smart, you should not be afraid of a little adverb, should you?

Second, concerning your assertion that this is a "web [sic] forum, not a scholarly journal," I do not agree that said forum is a get-out-of-grammar-rules-free card. In fact, instant messaging, text messaging, and these type forums have been shown to make people dumber.

http://www.maroonweekly.com/index.php?u=17&ID=632

As an educator--particularly as one who is pursuing English as a part of my concentration--I must fight this incessant need to cut corners. Would you not expect such a position from an English professor with a standard of excellence?

Third, concerning TWW-ers not agreeing with me and even those in my "own camp," both assertions are just laughable. My positions are my own--I would hold to them if I were one against ten thousand in opposition. The following is a quotation that you would do well to remember: "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind" (Ralph Waldo Emerson). Indeed. As to my camp, I was completely unaware that I had one. Unlike what I have heard about some on TWW, I do not send private messages to a clique or a bunch of groupies in order to get them to support me or not support another's position. "I stand alone" (Godsmack). (NB: You would do well to remember the preceding quotation, too.)

Now--with your bullshit addressed--will YOU address the following specific point: If guns are so dangerous, how is it that over HALF A MILLION people were hacked to death with machetes, which are essentially large knives? If the logic is so sound to heavily control or even ban guns, then should we not move to do the same with large knives? What about swords? Spears? Shouldn't the UN get involved? I mean, for humanitarian purposes, right, cyrion? Right?

9/22/2006 2:32:41 AM

Oh snap. Knockin' da PMs. Bring tha pain!

9/22/2006 9:52:07 AM

id like to address your three points separately, though you still ignored my last question.

first, your extended posts on grammar:
-once again, you have wasted half your reply on the topic
-you and i both know it's your own style of ad hominem attack
-the term web is colloquial and permissible, especially given the medium (hell ive heard it on the news or seen it in the paper plenty, go whine to them)
-i dont see anywhere in that article where using the internet makes you dumber. if you are trying to infer that i continuously have plagiarized papers, cheated using a cell phone, or can't type a coherent sentence without word, you'd sadly be mistaken. picking out a few words out of multiple posts, doesnt support that theory.

either way, it is completely off topic. go make an "internet makes you dumber" thread if you want it so i have something else to respond to while bored.


second, the "camp" argument. obviously i dont expect everyone to have the same exact views, but i found it odd that no one had agreed with your point yet. id imagine that at LEAST one pro-gun person might agree with you. sure, that doesnt make your argument invalid, but it makes it suspect.

finally, the continued machete argument. i wont pretend that i know a ton about the Rwandan massacre, so feel free to point out a misunderstanding (on actual history, not your opinion of it) if one occurs.

my original post stated that comparing the US (gasp i did it again) and Rwanda wasnt fair. i think this still applies. id imagine that many Rwandan citizens, beyond not having guns, didnt have the means to defend themselves. this probably stems from the generally poor nature of the country.

i dont think it helps that many killings were done by armed, trained militia members either. im sure if our police and army turned on us, even without guns, we might be in trouble.

add to this that they frightened regular members of society into helping them. basically if you are a tutsi, you are a poor Rwandan with few places to run and have basically no one to trust. this is not a good comparison for some guy robbing you or your house with a knife.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2006 10:16:41 AM

^ Your rambling post is hopeless, cyrion! You're sucking up too much of my time, boy. And your arguments suck, too.

Continue to live on "Fantasy Island" if you so choose. I only hope that after you have lived more outside the warping bubble of academia you will come to change your mind.

God, please deliver me from fucking twentysomething know-it-alls! And now, I take my leave of you lest I have to increase my blood pressure medication.

9/22/2006 8:28:49 PM

i've continually tried to explain to you why your comparisons or opinions make no sense, but much like other 1-issue trolls, you ignore them and parrot the same phrases time and time again. instead of letting your arguments speak for themselves though, you've attempted to discredit me by attacking my word usage or spelling.

at no point will i, or anyone else, agree that a screwdriver is comparable to a gun in the ways that you would like. likewise you'll never convince people that a massacre in Rwanda where militia cut down poor, unarmed citizens and scared moderates into cooperation is comparable to people needing to own pistols in the United States for home defense. yes, people kill others with items other than guns. we all get that. that doesnt make the two things completely comparable, particularly in such a setting.

what i love is people who think that they know something simply by being old. your condescending bs might work on highschool kids, but we dont play that game here grandpa. go grab your meds, put on your tin-foil hat, and scream for backup as that helicopter drops countless troops past the Mexican border.

9/22/2006 8:41:08 PM

Hmm...

Flamewar aside, I'll address the "breakdown of civil order" thing which cyrion has brought up, albeit indirectly...

"Katrina".

Note that the only people who stayed who managed to not get totally fucked over by the roving packs of looters were the ones who were armed.

Also, just for fun:



I just took that home today. I injected $530 ($500 to the seller, $30 to the FFL for the transfer) back into the economy. What have you, the anti-gunner, done for the economy today?

9/23/2006 7:41:02 PM

i dont have a problem with some of the pro-gun arguments, i just prefer my views. it is hooksaw's particular arguing style that is annoying.

that said i spent my 500 elsewhere

9/23/2006 7:45:00 PM

Quote :

"What have you, the anti-gunner, done for the economy today?"

i bet my friend i could kill 6 gun enthusiats before noon for $100 each.

9/23/2006 8:05:14 PM

^
But if you didn't actually do it, you made no transaction, meaning you did not help with the net velocity of money in your locale.

^^
Yeah, ad hom generally makes for an automatic fail on anyone's argument, even if he's on my side.

9/23/2006 8:38:16 PM

the point of life is to add velocity to money

[Edited on September 23, 2006 at 8:43 PM. Reason : 234]

9/23/2006 8:42:53 PM

"[CRY-ON], my wayward son / There'll be peace when you are done" (Kansas). I'm not your "grandpa," I'm your Daddy, bitch--and don't ever forget it.

9/26/2006 12:40:43 AM

^Shut it, hag...?

9/26/2006 2:52:30 AM

wow, we are so lucky to have hooksaw here, putting his busy, important life on hold to return to school, not only to educate himself, but to educate all of us as well. you must have killed like 58 guys in the war, all while knocking back 40s of Colt 45 and banging Thai hookers.

and that was just day one.

im waiting for the point where he starts physically threatening people and asking them to "meet him on campus". he seems like that type.

SUCH A BADDASS (YES, WITH TWO Ds!)

now, get to insulting our collective manhood/intelligence! chop chop!

or talking about how im not worth your time. either way.

PS: ive said it before, but as a gun owner, i see no problem with sensible registration laws and increased education in responsible handling. my non-violent nature also tells me i should only use it as a last resort, such as in armed rebellion against an oppressive gov.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 3:16 AM. Reason : .]

9/26/2006 3:09:19 AM

Surprise, surprise! You're actually all right with me, PinkandBlack. I just disagree with you. Hell, some of my best friends are socialists. And I usually ad hom someone only when they have attacked me--it's not a smart approach but it sometimes feels good.

Anyone who appreciates Depeche Mode can't be all bad. "Enjoy the Silence" takes me back to Europe during the '80s in a way only that song can.

Besides, Tojo took my shins. What're you going to do about that?

9/26/2006 3:25:51 AM

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 10,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 10,000 for the same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in theU.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.


Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington immediately.

9/27/2006 11:20:54 AM

Stiletto said:

Quote :

"Flamewar aside, I'll address the 'breakdown of civil order' thing which cyrion has brought up, albeit indirectly... 'Katrina'. Note that the only people who stayed who managed to not get totally fucked over by the roving packs of looters were the ones who were armed."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 11:49 AM. Reason : ///]

9/27/2006 11:46:57 AM

so why not just have laws that prevent criminals from getting guns? thats soooo crazy.

Quote :

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 10,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 10,000 for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in theU.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq. Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington immediately. "

your source would be .... yourself?

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 12:52 PM. Reason : 234]

9/27/2006 12:49:27 PM

Quote :

"so why not just have laws that prevent criminals from getting guns? thats soooo crazy. "

We do. Turns out, criminals are still getting guns. Seems like the problem is we're letting criminals out in the first place.

9/27/2006 12:53:46 PM

not to metion, those stats dont include iraqi deaths in the area. how come dc civilians count? i bet the amount of soldiers killed in DC per 10k is less than 1.

9/27/2006 12:55:32 PM

Quote :

"We do. Turns out, criminals are still getting guns."

then those laws should be replaced with ones that work

9/27/2006 12:55:39 PM