Zelaron Gaming Forum  
Stats Arcade Portal Forum FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Zelaron Gaming Forum > The Zelaron Nexus > General Discussion > Opinion and Debate

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-20, 03:42 PM in reply to Asamin's post starting "It would make bulling so much easier. I..."
Asamin, do you mean bullying by guns what the hell. The cops would stop that before it would start. And the body count and suicides would be tremendous if bullying went to that lvl (wait, doesn't that already happen in Philly right now?).
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Wallow is an uncelestial body of massWallow is an uncelestial body of massWallow is an uncelestial body of mass
 
 
Wallow
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-20, 09:31 PM in reply to Adrenachrome's post starting "I have several handguns and a Chinese..."
Adrenachrome said:
Chinese SKS
I have a Yugoslavian SKS (among other guns). Fun gun to shoot and cheap ammo ftw.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Dar_Win enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHzDar_Win enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHz
 
 
Dar_Win
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-20, 11:16 PM in reply to Dar_Win's post starting "I have a Yugoslavian SKS :D (among..."
I'm neutral about guns on campus. I can see both ways and I'm definitely not expert enough to make a judgment.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Willkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusion
 
 
Willkillforfood
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-21, 10:24 PM in reply to Willkillforfood's post starting "I'm neutral about guns on campus. I..."
I don't care about guns or gun laws. In my opinion they are just like a hammer or a saw. A tool. Nothing more and nothing less.
skurai said: [Goto]
big Foot -
A Big Monkey. So?
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
hotdog is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-betweenhotdog is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
hotdog
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-21, 10:46 PM in reply to hotdog's post starting "I don't care about guns or gun laws. In..."
But they are a tool designed explicitly for their efficacy in ending life.

Welcome back, by the way.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-22, 06:39 AM in reply to Wallow's post starting "Asamin, do you mean bullying by guns..."
Why said:
Asamin, do you mean bullying by guns what the hell. The cops would stop that before it would start. And the body count and suicides would be tremendous if bullying went to that lvl (wait, doesn't that already happen in Philly right now?).
We are talking about if Guns were allowed in school. A hypothetical situation.
<script type="text/javascript">alert("remember when scripting attacks worked?");</script>
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Asamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessAsamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessAsamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darkness
 
 
Asamin
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-22, 10:03 PM in reply to Demosthenes's post starting "But they are a tool designed explicitly..."
Mjordan2nd said:
But they are a tool designed explicitly for their efficacy in ending life.

Welcome back, by the way.
I don't intend on ending any lives when I go to the shooting range.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Dar_Win enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHzDar_Win enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHz
 
 
Dar_Win
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-22, 10:44 PM in reply to Dar_Win's post starting "I don't intend on ending any lives when..."
Dar_Win said:
I don't intend on ending any lives when I go to the shooting range.
Yet many people have them for precisely that reason.

And you too are subject to everyday human emotion. Sure, everyone likes to think they are above average. Everyone likes to think they are more in control of themselves and their emotions than the common man. Truth is, everyone is subject to the rage inherent in humans. Guns are a medium for expressing this rage in a fatal way.

I understand that you like your gun for sport. However, is it necessary to issue concealed handgun licenses for you to enjoy your sport? Is it necessary for you to keep your gun at home to enjoy your sport? Would it not be as much fun if your gun were kept at a less accessible place, such as a shooting range?

Furthermore, if basketball was the cause of 10,000 homicides per year, I would be all for illegalizing it. My main goal is preservation of human life. I think it is a worthy goal. I think it is a goal that the government should strive for. Personal liberty is great. However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-22, 11:20 PM in reply to Demosthenes's post starting "Yet many people have them for precisely..."
Mjordan2nd said:
However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

I suppose you could argue on the grounds of the word "temporary" or even "essential," but the spirit of the quote is still relevant I believe. I'm growing weary from the trend that people have been following as far as giving up rights for marginally less chance of dying.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Willkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusion
 
 
Willkillforfood
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 09:21 AM in reply to Demosthenes's post starting "Yet many people have them for precisely..."
Mjordan2nd said:
Yet many people have them for precisely that reason.

And you too are subject to everyday human emotion. Sure, everyone likes to think they are above average. Everyone likes to think they are more in control of themselves and their emotions than the common man. Truth is, everyone is subject to the rage inherent in humans. Guns are a medium for expressing this rage in a fatal way.

I understand that you like your gun for sport. However, is it necessary to issue concealed handgun licenses for you to enjoy your sport? Is it necessary for you to keep your gun at home to enjoy your sport? Would it not be as much fun if your gun were kept at a less accessible place, such as a shooting range?

Furthermore, if basketball was the cause of 10,000 homicides per year, I would be all for illegalizing it. My main goal is preservation of human life. I think it is a worthy goal. I think it is a goal that the government should strive for. Personal liberty is great. However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.
Yes but think of recent laws. One says that should you assualt anyone with any tool it counts as assualt with a deadly weapon. I know a lot of guns are made for ending life why else would you want a rifle that spits out some 200 rounds a second? But a weapon is anything that someone uses to enhance the damage done to their target. Meaning a hammer (which could be used to end life just as easy) could be labelled as such. I agree that some guns are a little ridiculous to give to someone who lacks the mental training and discipline of a soldier. No one needs to have the ability to tear another person into shreds at the pull of a trigger.

Of course no one will help me try to legalize dueling again

So my question is this. If you should take away people's guns would the people who get so enraged or tempted to kill another human being not resort to using other tools? Hammers? Knives? Rope? Chains? Shoes? Thus my arguement is not against guns but against the users. I think we should have laws that make people go through the needed training a soldier does to own a gun. Wouldn't that be a more effective law? I know many people would start riots over having their guns taken away. Because the constitution says they have the right to bear arms (which could mean they have the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall but alas no one would go with me on that one) in case their government becomes tyrannical. Of course how does a government become tyrannical when it's a democracy? Could I not then go and buy a gun and declare war on our government because they do things that I am against. Because by the end of the day when someone forces you to do something you don't want to do it's technically oppression. You can see where I would go with this. The never ending reasons as to why it would be less effective then just mentally conditioning people.

You would have less oppostion towards it. Then doing something that goes against the constitution.

EDIT: Thanks for the re-welcome. I actually forgot my password and username for the last few days lol.
skurai said: [Goto]
big Foot -
A Big Monkey. So?
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
hotdog is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-betweenhotdog is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
hotdog
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 09:29 AM in reply to hotdog's post starting "Yes but think of recent laws. One says..."
Quote:
Furthermore, if basketball was the cause of 10,000 homicides per year, I would be all for illegalizing it. My main goal is preservation of human life. I think it is a worthy goal. I think it is a goal that the government should strive for. Personal liberty is great. However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.
Brilliant.














Quote:
!King_Amazon!: I talked to him while he was getting raped
[quote][16:04] jamer123: GRRR firefox just like quit on me now on internet exploder[quote]
...
[quote=!King_Amazon!]notices he's 3 inches shorter than her son and he's circumcised [quote]
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
D3V is convinced there are no coincidences, only the illusion of coincidencesD3V is convinced there are no coincidences, only the illusion of coincidencesD3V is convinced there are no coincidences, only the illusion of coincidencesD3V is convinced there are no coincidences, only the illusion of coincidencesD3V is convinced there are no coincidences, only the illusion of coincidencesD3V is convinced there are no coincidences, only the illusion of coincidences
 
 
D3V
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 11:15 AM in reply to Willkillforfood's post starting ""Those who would give up essential..."
Willkillforfood said:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

I knew that quote was going to be brought into this.

I suppose you could argue on the grounds of the word "temporary" or even "essential," but the spirit of the quote is still relevant I believe. I'm growing weary from the trend that people have been following as far as giving up rights for marginally less chance of dying.
Of all the founding fathers of America, I respect Benjamin Franklin the most. That said, their words should not be our dogma. They may have been brilliant. They may have been right about many things. Their words may have a poetic draw that I can not hope to match. But if what they said endangers human life, if what they said is discordant with modern life, if what they said is discordant with modern evidence, fuck 'em.

That said, I agree with that quote to a large extent. I wouldn't say that they don't deserve liberty, and in my opinion everyone, regardless of how heinous, deserves life, but I agree with the spirit of that quote. But if we're arguing based on that quote, diction is important. Whether or not a liberty is essential is important. If we're fighting to keep unessential liberties and sacrificing life for these unessential liberties, we should quickly come to the realization that we have not made it out of the dark ages quite yet.

I find it so strange that people cry when a close relative dies, but they are quick to dismiss 10,000 deaths per year basically as a small margin of chance. Are we so used to violence that we are that immune to death? If that's the case, God help us.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Demosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to beDemosthenes seldom sees opportunities until they cease to be
 
Demosthenes
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 11:38 AM in reply to Demosthenes's post starting "Of all the founding fathers of America,..."
Your response brings up another quote I remember. It's much more recent though. Seems like disregard for the founding fathers' wishes. This is the basis of our government and our success over the past couple centuries.

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I'm not trying to trivialize 10,000 people dying annually, but when compared to the greater population it's just not that much. There are MANY things that could be done that could reduce the amount of deaths annually by 10,000. They could lower to speed limit to a crawl, closely monitor our diets, not allow us to perform any dangerous actions. However, if we wanted to do that we'd have to get rid of more liberties.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Willkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusion
 
 
Willkillforfood
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 12:45 PM in reply to Willkillforfood's post starting "Your response brings up another quote I..."
I think I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it's important that, when using the words of the founding fathers, you take them as they meant them at the time. Back then, there weren't guns readily available that could mow down a bunch of people. Usually you had one shot and you had to spend 5 minutes reloading.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
!King_Amazon!
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 01:33 PM in reply to !King_Amazon!'s post starting "I think I said this earlier in the..."
Yeah, it was in the civil war that we invented our first machine gun, the gattling gun. But it also had to be reloaded, and was the size of a cannon. No where near efficient as the guns we have today...
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Wallow is an uncelestial body of massWallow is an uncelestial body of massWallow is an uncelestial body of mass
 
 
Wallow
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 01:36 PM in reply to Demosthenes's post starting "Yet many people have them for precisely..."
Mjordan2nd said:
Yet many people have them for precisely that reason.

And you too are subject to everyday human emotion. Sure, everyone likes to think they are above average. Everyone likes to think they are more in control of themselves and their emotions than the common man. Truth is, everyone is subject to the rage inherent in humans. Guns are a medium for expressing this rage in a fatal way.

I understand that you like your gun for sport. However, is it necessary to issue concealed handgun licenses for you to enjoy your sport? Is it necessary for you to keep your gun at home to enjoy your sport? Would it not be as much fun if your gun were kept at a less accessible place, such as a shooting range?

Furthermore, if basketball was the cause of 10,000 homicides per year, I would be all for illegalizing it. My main goal is preservation of human life. I think it is a worthy goal. I think it is a goal that the government should strive for. Personal liberty is great. However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.
Why would I leave something that I payed hundreds of dollars for in the possesion of someone else? What other item do we do that with?

My guns are not only for the range. I hunt probably 5 times a year and I have them in a safe. My best friends family once had their entire house robbed at gun point by 4 men. They had cut the phone line and had no weapons or way of contacting people. This was in a wealthy neighborhood. For this reason I keep my handgun in a smaller safe that is easy to open, right near my bed. I'm not paranoid but I do have the right to protect myself and I will do so if needed. Seeing the look on their faces for the next month was enough to scare me.

I will have guns as long as criminals do. I'm not going to apply for a CCW license or anything but I will keep guns in my home to protect myself and my family if I ever have one. I understand why people don't like guns and I understand why some want them banned but they need to understand that some of us wish to be able to protect ourselves.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Dar_Win enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHzDar_Win enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHz
 
 
Dar_Win
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 03:38 PM in reply to !King_Amazon!'s post starting "I think I said this earlier in the..."
Guns were efficient means of killing people then and are now. You can't say "our founding fathers were too naive to think that weapons would get more efficient." Have you read the constitution? These were some very intelligent fellows, and anyways, you can't begin to say you understand the context of their minds. No one really does.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Willkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusionWillkillforfood read his obituary with confusion
 
 
Willkillforfood
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 04:04 PM in reply to Willkillforfood's post starting "Guns were efficient means of killing..."
Not unless we go back in time or ressurect them. Quick! Someone cast redemption!
<script type="text/javascript">alert("remember when scripting attacks worked?");</script>
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Asamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessAsamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darknessAsamin has an imagination enthroned in its own recess, incomprehensible as from darkness
 
 
Asamin
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 05:14 PM in reply to Asamin's post starting "Not unless we go back in time or..."
Sadly I ran out of MP conjuring up my debate point earlier.

Although I would have to ask. How serious did they think those 4 armed men were about shooting them. Sounds to me like they were really just thieves that were good at bluffing. If there were less robbers then I might be inclined to think you would need protection but when 4 people not only rob you but manage to destroy any chance of needing to kill you it sounds like they had a plan and got some information on the people living there. Meaning that they were not there to harm anyone. Thus protection was not needed anyways.

You can always tell smart and careful people from wildly violent people when they rob a place. If they come in shooting then yes you get protection. If they come in quietly and accidently wake you up then you would know they wanted no contact with you. They most likely just wanted stuff and there would be a chance that their guns were not loaded or even usable. They were just holding them as a means of keeping you away.

You cannot just use an event like that to deal an absolute. This is no game sadly. So therefore you need to get all of the info on the event. It's not exactly an air tight case on support because for all we know the robbers were not after the people. Meaning they had no intent of assualt or abuse thus what would you protect yourself from? You need to tell people if they were thugs or sneak thieves. Sneak thieves often use their skills at acting to rob when they need to but most of the time they are gone with your stuff before you know it. A thug would be the one that comes in shooting and asks you for where all your stuff is. Thus one would conclude that he never cased the place. Those are the ones that are often caught later on anyways.

Your paragraph on the robbery would have had the opposite effect of what you intended in a case because it's really just proving that you want to own a gun out of fear. Which is not a good thing when trying to help against people who want guns banned.
skurai said: [Goto]
big Foot -
A Big Monkey. So?
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
hotdog is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-betweenhotdog is neither ape nor machine; has so far settled for the in-between
 
 
hotdog
 



 
Reply
Posted 2008-04-23, 11:56 PM in reply to hotdog's post starting "Sadly I ran out of MP conjuring up my..."
They had an Uzi an AK-47, a handgun, and a shotgun. I wouldn't try to call someones bluff after they tied up myself and my family at gunpoint, then shot both of my dogs after they tried to interfere. Protection is the very last reason I own a gun. My very first gun was given to me by my father the day I turned 18. It was the gun my grandfather bought when he turned 18, then in turn gave it to my dad when he turned 18 and my dad gave it to me. I took a liking to shooting at the range and to hunting so I bought multiple guns. I have never bought a gun with safety and protection in mind btw. I'm not some crazy redneck gun collector or anything. I have 4 guns and don't intend on buying anymore.

btw someone called the cops on me for having a gun in the back of my car the other day.... it visibly had a trigger lock, the chamber was open to show it wasn't loaded and I had a stack of targets (i had obviously just come from the range) this was at a 7-11
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Dar_Win enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHzDar_Win enjoys the static noises of ten television sets simultaneously tuned to 412.84 MHz
 
 
Dar_Win
 
 

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules [Forum Rules]
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gun X Sword Grav Science and Art 4 2006-05-17 08:24 PM
Gun question (if this doesnt belong here, delete me) `Insolence` General Discussion 27 2003-03-23 03:22 PM
The second law of thermodynamics is, as we have seen, an irreversible physical law, a tacoX The Lounge 4 2002-07-02 08:47 AM
Gun dam?! Horus Science and Art 2 2002-06-21 05:26 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:35 PM.
'Synthesis 2' vBulletin 3.x styles and 'x79' derivative
by WetWired the Unbound and Chruser
Copyright ©2002-2008 zelaron.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is best seen with your eyes open.