Oh I noticed......Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
Printable View
Oh I noticed......Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
it's a hilarious play on words you see, peerzy. unfortunately billy dean is the only one who thinks it's funny :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
if you honestly think that if there were some sort of revolution, that those revolutionaries would attempt to fight the US military with conventional tactics, you must be as out of your mind as they would have to be. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Wtf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparsely
You feel differently about owning a gun so you make posts about something we agree on...sound different?
Read the last line of what you quoted ya crackhead....and STFU.
It's amazing that wanker is the only one not looking for combat at every turn.
You're the one who calls people names like "peezy" and "wanker". It's cool when Sawyer gives people nicknames on Lost but here it makes you sound like Billy Dean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
What did people think of Biggles comment:
To me that makes the most sense out of what anyone has written. Things aren't that way sadly in some places but it seems that some people don't even want to try and move in that direction.Quote:
Presumably everyone is agreed that in an ideal world no one would want to spend money on something as useless as a hand gun.
Yet I get.....Quote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
.....from Arsely. :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsely
I don't give 2 shits if HillBillieJean thinks it's funny. No one is begging for your laughter. (I don't get bent out of shape with the Busty shit)
Further from that, you are like the ref that sees the retaliation but not the initial hit...or maybe you see it and ignore it. Either way I can't be Arselied.
As far as that particular Biggles comment you quoted...it kinda goes without saying and was not very profound. It's been heard before.
"I wish I lived in a world where guns weren't needed"
Uh yeah. :ermm: Automatic profundity is not attached to veterans, drop-in posters, or old people..at least not in my book.
I use guns for sport to an extent but I'd gladly give that up. I shot someone before and wish I didn't have to do it. If I hadn't I might not be here now.
Busyman, you're a dick and nobody likes you
Damn...I'll be really thinking about that when I'm going through my normal day. :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
ok, ok. Agree to disagree, but the name calling needs to stop. I know you all are intelligent enough to know that isn't going to make the other person ever agree with your view, it just pushes them further away.
Your Gep name would be RGeppy if you were that way inclined. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
no thanks..... Tghe only name I need is the one my parents gave me :PQuote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
Fine by me. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
When others keep on an even keel and intelligently I'll respond in kind.
In other words
"They started it" :P
Just when you think things are changing.... they really do
http://www.wftv.com/news/4355286/detail.htmlQuote:
Florida NRA Bill Would Allow People To Kill Others In Public
People Who Feel Threatened Could Use Deadly Force
POSTED: 8:20 am EDT April 7, 2005
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.
The measure, the top priority of the National Rifle Association in Florida this year, passed the House 94-20 on Tuesday. It had already passed the Senate.
Bush, who has championed tougher penalties for people convicted of using guns in crimes, said the bill is about self-defense and called it "a good, common sense, anti-crime issue."
The measure essentially extends a right Floridians already have in their home or car. Under present law, however, people attacked anywhere else are supposed to do what they can to avoid escalating the situation and can use deadly force only after they've tried to retreat.
"I'm sorry, people, but if I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat," said the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Baxley. "That's a good way to get shot in the back."
Baxley said that if people have the clear right to defend themselves without having to worry about legal consequences, criminals will think twice.
Opponents feared the bill would make Florida resemble the wild West, but defenders say it is no different from what most other states allow in laws governing self-defense.
The bill said a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
Only in America would you be allowed to take like another persons life if they threatened you with nasty words and a big foam finger.
http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/images/shootout.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
I'm sorry, I didn't have the Dr. Suess version for you, to help you understand Peerzy. It says "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another." Meeting force with force doesn't include your stuffed animals :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peerzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
So teaching children that if someone hits you, that you smack them back in the face is right? Teaching children to retaliate whenever possible, teaching children that violence is the answer.
God Bless America :rolleyes:
Jeb Bush rawks :dry:
Two blokes meet in a dark alley, one guy shoots the other without provacation but in court says that the dead bloke was trying to steal his wallet.
I'm with Peerzy. That proposed ammendment is absolutely ridiculous.
A thousand floridian defence lawyers are smiling inside but looking in the mirror with deadpan faces and practicing the line "My client thought his life was in danger, he had every right to shoot to kill" -- how can they fail to win the case. The only person who knows for certain to the contrary has a tag on his toe.
As to the bill making criminals think twice, all it will do is give them the notion that they'd better get that first shot in.
For a state with such a high income, and dependency in some parts, regarding foreign tourism - Florida has just made itself as appealing to Europeans and Japanese as Tikrit.
I never said I agreed with the law change, you would just assume that knowing we have a gun in our house. I do think the law change is just asking for more firearm deaths than we already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
However... Not only is Florida a Tourism state, its a retirement state, and I'm happy for the older people who don't have to put up with the bullshit criminals do to them.
I would not choose this law for myself, I'm still young enough to fend for me. its easy for a senior citizen to get a permit to carry though, so I feel happy for them.
Old people with guns? :ph34r: They kill enough people on the roads...Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
Maybe where you live thats the case, but we seem to have a problem with the 18-22 hispanic people in my area. Ask anyone who's been to Puerto Rico :PQuote:
Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420
Eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
Why did you presume that diatribe was aimed at you, as you rightly say, you never said that you agreed with it.
I didn't quote you and was merely stating my opinion on the matter, is that okay.
But since you've replied ... .
I'm in favour of re-testing drivers at 60 because they're a nuisance on the road and cost lives, it's a fact that your reflexes dull as you get to a certain age. This new law is going to make the criminals adopt a new mentality, kill or be killed.
Even if the pensioner is packing, what chance does he or she have. By the time that they fumble around for the weapon, the criminal is going to be pointing his own at their face or discharging it.
http://www.coralcastle.com/img%5Camerica-flag.jpg
The hunt is on, kill or be killed....
It seems to me the criminals were killing anyway...... :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Wow, that special Floridian law of the right to carry a weapon in public seems to be working a treat.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
Even if they are killing at the moment, which they undoubtedly are, you can't be blind to the fact that it's probable that they would be more disposed to discharge their weapon because of this law. If a criminal feels threatened then he will take steps to defend himself and remember, he is not bound by the law of the land.
This law is encouraging members of the public to stand their ground against muggers. FFS, give him your damn wallet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
But now they can get away with it.
I don't think its so much muggings that encouraged this law. Can't back it up because I don't remember where I saw it, but it seems people who were polled as to how much cash they carry averaged around $20. The majority of people just carry their bank debit card. In all seriousness, I think the most trouble is going to occur where it has been anyway, in Downtown Orlando where the drug dealers hang out on the corners or Orange Blossom Trail.....Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
I'm sure those who are against this law will have numbers for others too see exactly how many more peolple were killed as a direct result of this law.
What else is there apart from attacks for cash or a cash equivalent, i.e. muggings.
There is sexual assault but that's it. Under existing law, I imagine it would already be okay for a woman to shoot a guy that was trying to rape her.
Dennis Baxley said 'If I was attacked I shouldn't have to take a backward step' so presumably he is talking of being mugged or just getting beaten up for being an idiot.
I honestly can't answer that, because as I said, I knew nothing of this law until last night reading the newspaper.... I would think the 2 biggest reasons would be home invasion, or car jackings, however both were already covered under the old law :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
We did have several tourists from the UK that were held up in front of their motel rooms some time back, but you guys can't have guns, don't believe in havings guns, can't carry them on the airplane even if you did, so I'm sure that isn't it either.
I sure The NRA made a contribution to Jeb Bush for his impending presidency or something.... that must be it :lol:
:lol: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
It's a weird one for sure.
Though he was talking about Iraq I think Bill Hicks' may have been on to something:
Quote:
We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane ... throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up." "I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me." "Pick up the gun." "Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister." "Pick up the gun." Boom, boom. "You all saw him. He had a gun."
I'm not entirely convinced by this. I can buy that the average burglar would seek to avoid conflict but, but I have a hard time seeing how you can make conclusive statements regard their ability to aim a gun at relatively short range.Quote:
Originally Posted by J2
In my experience it's fairly easy to hit something a few metres away with any weapon, be it a tossed rock, a waterpistol, a bow or a bb gun, and I assume the principle is the same with a handgun too. I didn't need training to hit things smaller than a human body from five metres away, or maybe even ten (but then again, my instructor at the (bb) shooting-club told me I was a natural, so who knows :rolleyes: ).
No matter how little you've trained, it's mostly a case of point-and-shoot at close range, they might not even hit you center-mass, but not even a total muppet could avoid to wing you with a full mag. The only way you'd have a real advantage there would be if your training with a gun involved drawing like some bloody cowboy.
Sure, you might be more likely to hit them exactly where you aim, and maybe you'll have an easier time hitting them with all your shots, but I reckon it only takes one shot. This is of course in optimal conditions, if everyone is moving around it's a bastard no matter the amount of training involved, all in all, it might be more a matter of luck than any sort of skill.
I don't quite grasp this, as I suggested that they'd be shooting at stuff just for the hell of it, and thus be getting some training, specifically because they are idiots.Quote:
The reckless idiots are, by-and-large, precisely the type to engage in burglaries and/or other strong-arm activites, and they are entitled to my contempt as prospective opponents, especially when they are on my turf.
My point is that truly "gifted" criminals do not engage in home invasions, SnnY.
But putting that aside, it takes all kinds to do crime, including someone like me at a certain point in life. I never fancied myself overly reckless, and while I'd never under any circumstances have broken into anyone's home, since my conscience would not have let me, the concept of burglary might not be an entirely foreign concept for me.
What I can tell is that if I had encountered someone, child or adult, female or male, I'd have legged it, 'cos I sure as hell wouldn't have stood around waiting for anyone to memorize my face.
The only way you'd have gotten me to hurt someone would have been if they'd attacked or threatened me with a knife or something, 'cos then I reckon any survival instincts might have kicked in. Like I've said before, I think most people would avoid conflict as far as they could, and while I suppose that the gun, assuming nothing goes wrong, would be some form of deterrent to those abnormal enough to attack you without provocation, I also think that it might trigger an aggressive response in some that would otherwise have done the sane thing and just left.
And contest this as much as you like, but people tend to be part of the norm, no matter where in society they are currently at, your thugs might be idiots, but I still don't think it's possible that most of them would immediately charge you, rather than run.
Like I've said I think that just the sight of you might be protection enough, that's why most of them would pick a time when they think that you aren't at home. if you aren't at home to wave it about, the gun is absolutely useless anyway.Quote:
If I grant your point about "you never know", I still like my odds, and if this offends you, I apologize.
I am at heart an extremely peaceful, go-along to get-along kind of guy.
Just don't fuck with my stuff.
I don't walk around acting tough, or giving off that particular vibe-I know how to if I want, but I've never particularly wanted to.
Most of us feel just that way, "don't fuck with my stuff", it's a fairly normal mode of thought, but I don't think it'd be worth risking my life over. Also, quite frankly, I would be a bit worried about who I might shoot too. No matter if the law was on my side, I'd still have to live with the fact that I'd shot a fifteen-year-old kid out for thrills, if so was the case.
I'd rather lose my tv than have to live with that.
There are more than one type of gun-related accident, the notion of accidentally just pulling the trigger when you are pointing the gun at someone already, scares me, and it doesn't seem too improbable. You wouldn't know who he or she might have been in the future. I would not want that responsibility.
Apart from that I think that, ultimately, odds or not, this belief that owning a gun is worthwhile because it might save you is just that, a belief, looking at statistics or using common sense it's pretty evident that people get injured or killed by guns a lot more often, and that the number of deaths per capita is higher, than in a civilized society that doesn't have them. Thus I think it is safe to say that the right to own guns never saved anyone, and that the belief in them as a saviour is misplaced.
A lot of people get killed, and while they do have guns to protect them, this hardly seems to bring down the number of deaths.
Again, the sign is not the gun, if you do have one, and it wards them off, then it would have done exactly the same thing without you owning the gun.Quote:
The odds (as I have stated) are against someone so forewarned breaking in.
As Busyman has pointed out, criminals are not, at heart, heroic, and do not
"lose face" if they move on to a situation which is likely to be more productive.
I hope you can forgive my callousness in deciding not to absorb an assault in order to save someone less well-prepared than I.
After all, it is probably about 3 AM, and I need my beauty sleep.
At the same time, if the sign is there to announce that you have a gun, then any burglars that do enter your home, will be burglars prepared to shoot you to defend themselves.
If the sign says something else, announcing the existence of an alarm or so, then the sign and the gun have no bearing on each other. And the effectiveness of the one doesn't in any way reflect upon the other.
No it isn't, I'm saying that there're all kinds of reasons that you might not be performing at your best, illness and alcohol are just two examples. The world doesn't wait for you to react when it's convenient. you want to think that any one of these things is unlikely on its own, that's fine, but that's not the same thing as saying that one of a thousand silly things that might go wrong happening is equally unlikely. It's impossible to do things exactly the way you want, pretty much no matter what you are trying to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by busyman
I've never said I didn't like guns, not liking guns is not the same thing as saying they aren't necessary for the purpose you have them for.Quote:
I tell you I handle my gun rarely yet because you just don't like guns, find any remote reason to say it's a bad thing to have one. This could done with ANYTHING.
If you owned yours to hunt, or because you were in the police, then it would be something else entirely.
I couldn't argue about just anything, you know this just as well as I, and if this was an argument to which I had no arguments, you'd hardly be pulling out these kinds of non-sequiteurs in lieu of actual arguments to support your stance.
And this means what?Quote:
Further prove as to the "you don't know what you are talking about" department is that not everyone is packing. You even conveniently added the carjackers kill people because everyone has a gun.
I know that people get shot simply because some robbers think it's easier to have no one screaming and moving around and just take what they want.
I conveniently forget..? What I'm saying is that they might be thinking just the same thing as you ie "my antagonist in this matter may be dangerous to me, so as a precaution I'll use my gun to ensure that he or she doesn't hurt me". Everybody knows it's perfectly possible to live without a gun, but a lot of people are afraid that the other party might have one, you yourself is a perfectly valid example of this.
As for the rest, it really doesn't matter why they got shot, the point is that they did get shot, gun or not.
Logic dictates nothing in this case, statistics indicate that there's no conclusive evidence to support your stance. Your gun might as well be what gets you in trouble, either because one of a thousand things goes wrong with your handling of it, or because the sight of it is what provokes someone else into shooting you.Quote:
Btw using the word might on my part directly correlates to my reason for owning a gun. Yours is a fishing expedition.
Logic dictates that my owning a gun could save my life. Having it my house is not a risk since it is locked. It is loaded at the gun range and unloaded before I leave there.
I would not call my "logic" fishing, when yours is as unsteady as it is.
I have never seen F9/11, and my views of your country comes from watching people, coupled with what I know about your system. I know how people act, and I know how accidents happen.Quote:
Your views of America are born out of ignorance. I couldn't claim to know of your area having not been there. This is not Beirut.
Watch F9/11 again or something. Gun activists focus on those that improperly hande guns to prove a point and ignore those with proper handling. You got me mixed up son.
This has absolutely nothing to with ignorance. I'm not a gun-activist, and I have no party-affiliation whatsoever, I say what I say because it's what makes sense.
But really, this is going nowhere, you've both got your faith in guns, and I've got my conviction.
I think the new law was unnecessary.
The law takes pressure off the victim to deflate a situation. I like it better when, even if allowed to carry a concealed weapon, that there would more of a threat that the victim would put the ringer in court for his/her actions.
The laws intentions are good. I know folks that, weren't for a gun, they'd be dead right now. It's the only reason I'm here now. The problem.....
Ii I had shot this person with my own gun I'd be in jail. It so happens that I shot him with one of his and still I was given shit about it.
The point that anything can "makes sense". It can make sense that I shouldn't drive to work but take the subway. Here's my "might" case then...Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
My house is broken into...someone is obviously headed to my bedroom.
I have no weapon and my lights are on. What do I do?
Yours views of my country come from you not actually living here. Your view of statistics means I should already be dead cos I've been around guns forever almost. I know the people here better than you do.
You call my logic unsteady yet haven't come up anything valid for me simply not to own a gun. Your stats don't apply to me.
You could argue why I shouldn't drink faucet water.
Sure I have come up with something valid. If you've missed that then I'd be amazed.
But to recap I can mention the most important points: Accidents do happen.
And...
People do shoot other people because these other people do hold guns.
Just anything doesn't make sense, but some things do.
My view of your country comes from facts that are widely available, be it statistics or information about laws. Although my views on people, which is the important thing in this matter, comes from being around people all my life. Unless, of course Americans aren't human beings like the rest of us.
Most of us are a hell of a lot less unique than we'd like to think, that's why it's possible for governments like your own to base their decisions on statistics.
As for your scenario, assuming we can forget that it isn't that likely to happen, you can barricade the door, you might do well to make noise, 'cos like J2 and you have said a couple of times, "thugs aren't very brave" and this might be enough to make them get out of the house and pick one where no one is at home. You can call the cops, if they've cut the phoneline the cops are already alerted tho', thanks to your fancy alarm, in which case they are already on their way.
And hell, get out the window.
And if the lights are on then they weren't really out to catch you in your sleep anyway, so they are probably not planning on having to deal with you.
So why shouldn't I own a gun again? From what you've said I wouldn't have to use it unless I really had to (you know with the alarm and all). I people bet with panic rooms don't use 'em much either.....but that one time........Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I'll let your shitty American comment slide cos for awhile you've been nothing but on even keel. There are differences in people in different regions. I might be able to fit right in where you are more so than you here. Who knows? I react to trouble nicely while you may not. (doesn't mean I'm looking for it).
I believe the world is getting worse not better.
'cos the benefits of owning one aren't proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
If you do use it that one time you think you need it, and it gets you shot then you are screwed just the same even tho' you've been oh so careful.
But I guess that given the faith you have in it, you are behaving about as reasonably as is possible, so that's good.
Eh, slide?Quote:
I'll let your shitty American comment slide cos for awhile you've been nothing but on even keel. There are differences in people in different regions. I might be able to fit right in where you are more so than you here. Who knows? I react to trouble nicely while you may not. (doesn't mean I'm looking for it).
I believe the world is getting worse not better.
I think Americans are people, and I think that there are certain universal things all normal people have in common.
It certainly wasn't a shitty comment by intention in any way. I am prone to sarcasm some times, but basically it was an attempt to say that I think human beings are the same anywhere to a certain extent.
Sure there are differences between people, but I don't think Americans would act differently on average when it comes to self-preservation or violence. And I don't think that you are more likely than any other people to be idiots, or to want to hurt each other.
I don't think I would be more prone to reacting badly to trouble than you, but that's not to say that neither of us could make mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Your right, American's are breeding faster.
The benefits have been proven to me.
This is where stat sheet does not necessarily meet up with common sense.
You say you know people but so do I. I don't overreact much but there may be an instance that you may yourself in a situation that is totally irrational.
I've seen folks that would stab you because they feel like it. In my day I knocked someone out because they bumped into me without saying "excuse me".
Irrational.
You say you know people but people have saved their own lives by having a gun (myself included). Argue that shouldn't have had one because they might have shot their big toe off or that they might get a fever and there would be nothing but laughter.
Getting rid of guns for people qualified to have them is not the answer, especially here.
Raise the qualifications to weed out idiots. We have the same "weeding out" for one to get into the phone company and then for certain jobs within it.
Why is there a test for a telecommunications job and no test for a firearm? :blink:
The bad part is the main problem ain't registered users. It's criminals.
I have a stat.
No gun = this post doesn't exist.
Exacly, America is slowly buttfucking itself, and this new law takes rear-end penetration to a whole new level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Walking into Walmart with $50 suddenly makes you qualified to take the life of innocent people.Quote:
qualified people