Jump to content

Ask me about Communism.


Recommended Posts

It's pretty damn obvious that GD doesn't mean it in such an extreme way though. Or are you trying to say it's just a slippery slope?

 

You'd think the obvious answer is try to find some balance between freedom and collective good, since thats what the Western world has tried to do for decades now. But here we are seemingly stuck between "FREE FREE FREE ALL BY MYSELF" and regime du Stalin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets see here...

 

A society is made up of what...

 

Oh, let's see here...

 

INDIVIDUALS!

 

Doesn't mean one individual can't benefit in a way that harms the rest.

 

This is irrelevant, though, as owning a gun has no real benefit anyway.

 

What a totally ignorant thing to say. What are you, 5 years old? Try telling that to people who are alive today because they had a handgun. Why don't you go do some 'real' research on the subject instead of being the perfect media-puppet, happily applauding everything they tell you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What a totally ignorant thing to say. What are you, 5 years old? Try telling that to people who are alive today because they had a handgun. Why don't you go do some 'real' research on the subject instead of being the perfect media-puppet, happily applauding everything they tell you.

 

There are no doubt going to be individual situations where someone having a handgun saved an innocent life by shooting a criminal. By the same account there are no doubt individual instances where accidents have happened by law-abiding citizens owning handguns that had disastrous results (Note: at no point am I stating that these situations have equivalent occurrence rates). Personally I find your appeal to emotion as unfair, because one could easily come back and state something like "Try telling that to a family that lost someone because some neighbor had an accident with a firearm."

 

Frankly, finding the facts in general for stuff like this is very, very... cloudy. It's a polarizing issue that is hotly debated. Wikipedia's article in general states the ineffectiveness of gun control through citing statistics that certainly don't paint it in a positive light (murder rates increasing, etc.). I do have some issues with it, but in the limited amount of research I have done on gun control (i.e. the past hour or so), finding a source that does not have me questioning bias has been difficult. Though from what I could piece together, it does seem at first glance that gun control is ineffective on controlling violent crime rates, and possibly even a detriment to them.

 

I'll definitely need to spend more time on the subject, but I don't have much time at the moment.

Edited by alanschu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know you, but it seems like you could be a reasonable person. Although your comment that I was unfair is also unfair, imo, since accidents of all sorts occur on a daily basis yet there are no calls for banning on any of them except guns.

 

Here are a few links to get you started.

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3

Link #4

 

I have a good healthy respect for handguns and rifles. I have made sure I know how to load, shoot, and unload one properly, because gun accidents can happen when someone doesn't know how to properly handle one. Kind of like someone driving a car without taking lessons you see. Or flying a plane, or operating any kind of machinery or even cooking on the stove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
since accidents of all sorts occur on a daily basis yet there are no calls for banning on any of them except guns.

 

Things that are known to cause a high level of accidents and/or particularly damaging accidents are usually banned or called to be banned.

 

Gun accidents also involve, say, the individual panicking or losing his/her head, not just handling problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets see here...

 

A society is made up of what...

 

Oh, let's see here...

 

INDIVIDUALS!

 

Doesn't mean one individual can't benefit in a way that harms the rest.

 

This is irrelevant, though, as owning a gun has no real benefit anyway.

 

What a totally ignorant thing to say. What are you, 5 years old? Try telling that to people who are alive today because they had a handgun. Why don't you go do some 'real' research on the subject instead of being the perfect media-puppet, happily applauding everything they tell you.

 

Try telling that to the family of a person who was shot with a legally owned gun.

 

I have yet to hear one convincing reason why a person should be able to legally own a handgun. Every bit of data I've ever seen points towards it being an innefective method of self-defense, and there certainly is no practical use.

 

Once again, you don't have the right to harm people. Why should you have the right to own a device designed to harm people?

"The universe is a yawning chasm, filled with emptiness and the puerile meanderings of sentience..." - Ulyaoth

 

"It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built." - Kreia

 

"I thought this forum was for Speculation & Discussion, not Speculation & Calling People Trolls." - lord of flies

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had used them correctly there would have been no reason for anyone to be harmed.

Edited by awsomeness

Hey now, my mother is huge and don't you forget it. The drunk can't even get off the couch to make herself a vodka drenched sandwich. Octopus suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they had used them correctly there would have been no reason for anyone to be harmed.

 

Handguns exist for the purpose of harming other people. That's what they are designed to do.

"The universe is a yawning chasm, filled with emptiness and the puerile meanderings of sentience..." - Ulyaoth

 

"It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built." - Kreia

 

"I thought this forum was for Speculation & Discussion, not Speculation & Calling People Trolls." - lord of flies

Link to post
Share on other sites

First rule of using a firearm: Don't aim at anything you don't want to shoot. If they used proper firearm safety nobody would have been hurt.

Hey now, my mother is huge and don't you forget it. The drunk can't even get off the couch to make herself a vodka drenched sandwich. Octopus suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First rule of using a firearm: Don't aim at anything you don't want to shoot. If they used proper firearm safety nobody would have been hurt.

 

You're dodging the point.

 

There's no reason for anyone to own a handgun. You're not allowed to use it for its intended purpose. Self-defense is bunk - all studies show you're more likely to be shot if you own a handgun.

"The universe is a yawning chasm, filled with emptiness and the puerile meanderings of sentience..." - Ulyaoth

 

"It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built." - Kreia

 

"I thought this forum was for Speculation & Discussion, not Speculation & Calling People Trolls." - lord of flies

Link to post
Share on other sites

By your own gun? If so, then of course. You can't be shot by a nonexistant gun. If it's the other person's gun, then they're just as likely to stab you as they are to shoot you.

Hey now, my mother is huge and don't you forget it. The drunk can't even get off the couch to make herself a vodka drenched sandwich. Octopus suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
By your own gun? If so, then of course. You can't be shot by a nonexistant gun. If it's the other person's gun, then they're just as likely to stab you as they are to shoot you.

 

Not necessarily true, though probably irrelevant, as I believe it was the former. I have to go find the source again, I read it a few weeks back.

"The universe is a yawning chasm, filled with emptiness and the puerile meanderings of sentience..." - Ulyaoth

 

"It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built." - Kreia

 

"I thought this forum was for Speculation & Discussion, not Speculation & Calling People Trolls." - lord of flies

Link to post
Share on other sites
Although your comment that I was unfair is also unfair, imo, since accidents of all sorts occur on a daily basis yet there are no calls for banning on any of them except guns.

 

Accidents occur on a daily basis that do result in people calling for controls of some sort. The first thing that came to my head was bicycle helmets on children. Where I live, parents can be fined if their child doesn't wear one, yet while I grew up in the 80s I never wore one. I'm not 100% sure if it was passed, but I know some parents wanted to ban tag at school because some kids were getting hurt when someone aggressively tagged another person.

 

The reason why your comment is unfair is because it's an aggressive appeal to emotion. Instead of posting the links that you eventually did post, you made an emotionally charged post, complete with an insult and an anecdote that appeals to emotion. In my opinion, you'd have been better served simply posting your links.

 

As for your links, I already found most of them. Finding people against gun control with links (especially the UK and Australia examples) isn't difficult. Filtering through it with some due diligence is the time consuming part.

Edited by alanschu
Link to post
Share on other sites
Try telling that to the family of a person who was shot with a legally owned gun.

 

By accident? It would be a grievous situation, as in any accident that caused a death and they'd benefit in learning proper handling of a firearm. Or not have one at all in their household.

By attack? In which case they'd have been better served in having a firearm to hand for their defense.

 

I have yet to hear one convincing reason why a person should be able to legally own a handgun. Every bit of data I've ever seen points towards it being an innefective method of self-defense, and there certainly is no practical use.

 

Only because you don't want to know! Did you read any of the links I posted? Or is that data you don't want to see? Here is just one very good reason to own and have to hand a firearm ~

where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.
~ paragraph 8 of the 2nd link.

 

Once again, you don't have the right to harm people. Why should you have the right to own a device designed to harm people?

 

Who's saying they have a right to harm people? Not me... not my neighbors... nor my family or friends. Yet most of us have owned guns for several generations and never harmed a single soul. We are the people Oblarg. You don't have the right to dictate what decent law-abiding citizens can and can't do. Nor do you have the right to tell us we cannot defend ourselves and our families. That is not only our right, but our duty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're dodging the point.

 

There's no reason for anyone to own a handgun. You're not allowed to use it for its intended purpose. Self-defense is bunk - all studies show you're more likely to be shot if you own a handgun.

 

You keep saying that yet show no proof of these studies. In my personal experience handguns have saved lives from criminals and miscreants. My personal experience trumps you keep saying "studies show" repeatedly without actually showing those studies every time. As long as there are criminals with guns, law abiding citizens should have guns. As long as government offcials and law enforcement have guns, then law abiding citizens should have guns.

 

2nd Amendment, Oblarg.

 

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

 

Don't like it, then get out of the US.

"Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Accidents occur on a daily basis that do result in people calling for controls of some sort. The first thing that came to my head was bicycle helmets on children. Where I live, parents can be fined if their child doesn't wear one, yet while I grew up in the 80s I never wore one. I'm not 100% sure if it was passed, but I know some parents wanted to ban tag at school because some kids were getting hurt when someone aggressively tagged another person.

 

The reason why your comment is unfair is because it's an aggressive appeal to emotion. Instead of posting the links that you eventually did post, you made an emotionally charged post, complete with an insult and an anecdote that appeals to emotion. In my opinion, you'd have been better served simply posting your links.

 

As for your links, I already found most of them. Finding people against gun control with links (especially the UK and Australia examples) isn't difficult. Filtering through it with some due diligence is the time consuming part.

 

Emotion! Aww you ain't seen nothin' buddy. Just be glad I couldn't reach any of you with my frying pan, you'd all have lumps on your heads right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh geezie, I was just being playful.... forget it, it's obviously lost on you.

 

Aren't we defensive? Given your obvious hostility towards Oblarg, and your defensiveness to me calling your example unfair, I was wondering if you were lumping me into a pro-gun control crowd and wanting to hit me (and Oblarg and others) to "knock some sense into us."

 

Unsurprisingly, you are dismissive by stating your silliness is lost on me, without accounting for the fact that, perhaps on the internet, things get read differently by other people. Given you have been both defensive and dismissive when I stated the unfairness of your example, it seemed like you were continuing to be unreasonable. Perhaps the idea that I interpreted your frying pan as continued deflection of the point I was trying to make was "obviously lost on you." That you felt it was unfair for me to call you on it is enlightening.

Edited by alanschu
Link to post
Share on other sites

I stated my perspective on the situation, in what I would consider a decidedly "nice" manner. I certainly could have been much more aggressive (from the very first post, in fact). The "obviously lost on you part" quote was done for effect, though the enlightening comment is pretty much just a barb. Oh wells.

 

As for Return to Ostagar, it has apparently been delayed. I am not on the DAO DLC team, so I don't know why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh geezie, I was just being playful.... forget it, it's obviously lost on you.

 

Aren't we defensive? Given your obvious hostility towards Oblarg, and your defensiveness to me calling your example unfair, I was wondering if you were lumping me into a pro-gun control crowd and wanting to hit me (and Oblarg and others) to "knock some sense into us."

 

Unsurprisingly, you are dismissive by stating your silliness is lost on me, without accounting for the fact that, perhaps on the internet, things get read differently by other people.

 

Exactly so. You elaborated on my emotional approach, and instead of 'being defensive' or 'offensive' over it I opted for silliness. Things are often read differently than what the poster intended. But I certainly do have emotions.. I am an individual after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...