that is the smartest thing i've ever heard anyone say on this forum, grats..maffro said:
and its %100 true, in AU its the same deal
Forget the zombie apocalypse
- Thread starter AntiThom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
and its %100 true, in AU its the same deal
couldn't a criminal steal a gun i mean seriusly.creating gun laws is dumb, they say"OH it will decrease gun violence because criminals won't have guns!!!" WRONG would a CRIMINAL really OBEY the law, fuck no why would he care when he is already braking the law. the only thing gun laws do is remove the ability for citizens to defend themselves.rossatdi said:
I'll state for the recorder that I personally own at least 4 firearms of various sizing, and while I do occassionally feel the urge to eradicate a large portion of humanity, it is not my guns bidding me to do it, I've had the urge to kill assholes for YEARS before I even got the gun.
And now, wouldn't you know that an American can own guns while holding intense homicidal thoughts and not act on them. And seriously, people from other countries should probably shut their mouths on what americans do, it's really none of your buisness and personally you shouldn't automatically judge all americans, personally I'm rather athletic, I have an IQ of 132, and I speak three diffrent languages.
And now, wouldn't you know that an American can own guns while holding intense homicidal thoughts and not act on them. And seriously, people from other countries should probably shut their mouths on what americans do, it's really none of your buisness and personally you shouldn't automatically judge all americans, personally I'm rather athletic, I have an IQ of 132, and I speak three diffrent languages.
Once again, you have no idea how many guns their are per american, hell, most people don't even own a gun, and while there are more guns here than say Britian, most of them are used for, oh my god, hunting! Because we still have land to do it!
I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but you don't see me sitting here and bashing all of your countries or anything
ok listen i have a simple solution: special anti-zombie rifles.
and yes "you jacked my (insert drug here) IM GUNNA KILL YOU *****... oh... guns are illegal? well, i cant be using one of THOSE then. and killing someone with poison or a knife is impossible." notice how everything after the word "oh" sounded REALLY fucking stupid? yeah, theres a reason for that.
but back to the zombie thing... HOW DO YOU HAVE PROPER ZOMBIE KILLING WITHOUT GUNS!?!? for fucks sake, we dont all have chainsaws, and we arent all god damn ninjas. i know i for one suffer from a distinct lack of katana's at this location. no chainsaws either.
and yes "you jacked my (insert drug here) IM GUNNA KILL YOU *****... oh... guns are illegal? well, i cant be using one of THOSE then. and killing someone with poison or a knife is impossible." notice how everything after the word "oh" sounded REALLY fucking stupid? yeah, theres a reason for that.
but back to the zombie thing... HOW DO YOU HAVE PROPER ZOMBIE KILLING WITHOUT GUNS!?!? for fucks sake, we dont all have chainsaws, and we arent all god damn ninjas. i know i for one suffer from a distinct lack of katana's at this location. no chainsaws either.
First of all QFT.Ranooth said:The second we stop worrying about the zombies is the second it happens!!
Kids, be prepared to kill your parents, otherwise they will eat you brain
Now then, I seriously doubt anyone is going to succeed in taking away all our guns. They too ingrained in the history of our country (as in our previous freedom to have them) and I think too much uproar would be caused by trying to take them. It would be like saying "Ok sure you have a president, but next election day there wont be an election, i'm becoming a dictator and or King and you cant stop me". Its just too established for it to come to that.
Secondly it wouldn't stop the criminals from getting them, and there's no point in taking civillian guns if the criminals will have them anyway.
There already is gun control in the US. But gun control is meaningless if the culture of a given country is one that does not view guns with the same apprehension as other cultures might.
That's why gun control isn't enforced as strictly in the US as it is in other countries. And why, in many states, gun laws are positively lax. Amusingly, these states are not the ones known for their violent crime.
While a violent culture is rather unpleasant to behold, there's something to be said of the reluctance criminals have with regards to the thought of targeting an armed citizen. Or even the possibility of said citizen being armed.
While AntiThorn's zeal is tiring, even for those who don't entirely disagree with him, the rudeness and disdain that gun control advocates in this thread have shown gun owners and those who disagree with strict gun control in America (please note that American culture is not something that can be changed by insults exchanged over an internet forum) is just as bad.
I'm especially disappointed in those who insult American gun culture from without. Considering the stereotype of Americans as intolerant, belligerent brutes with no regard for other peoples or their opinions, the irony of your behavior should not have escaped you.
At the very least, we try to be hospitable to those whose beliefs are different from us. Even when we're mean, we hold back. (Except for the little kids on Live. They haven't figured out that everyone hates them yet.)
Look at the movie Borat. While Sacha Baron Cohen wanted to reveal latent anti-semitism in America, all he really did was reveal just how tolerant Americans were towards a character we could hardly admire except from the luxury of his own position of irony. And that when people are drunk, we're willing to sing about anything.
Honestly, people were so nice to Borat, even when they were clearly uncomfortable. It's kind of bewildering.
That's why gun control isn't enforced as strictly in the US as it is in other countries. And why, in many states, gun laws are positively lax. Amusingly, these states are not the ones known for their violent crime.
While a violent culture is rather unpleasant to behold, there's something to be said of the reluctance criminals have with regards to the thought of targeting an armed citizen. Or even the possibility of said citizen being armed.
While AntiThorn's zeal is tiring, even for those who don't entirely disagree with him, the rudeness and disdain that gun control advocates in this thread have shown gun owners and those who disagree with strict gun control in America (please note that American culture is not something that can be changed by insults exchanged over an internet forum) is just as bad.
I'm especially disappointed in those who insult American gun culture from without. Considering the stereotype of Americans as intolerant, belligerent brutes with no regard for other peoples or their opinions, the irony of your behavior should not have escaped you.
At the very least, we try to be hospitable to those whose beliefs are different from us. Even when we're mean, we hold back. (Except for the little kids on Live. They haven't figured out that everyone hates them yet.)
Look at the movie Borat. While Sacha Baron Cohen wanted to reveal latent anti-semitism in America, all he really did was reveal just how tolerant Americans were towards a character we could hardly admire except from the luxury of his own position of irony. And that when people are drunk, we're willing to sing about anything.
Honestly, people were so nice to Borat, even when they were clearly uncomfortable. It's kind of bewildering.
Actually, that's not true. Here comes the age old argument. The criminals won't sayrossatdi said:
"Oh, the Government doesn't want me to get a gun, so I won't." They're gonna get them one way or another.
And if they have guns, and the general populace don't, well, you can probably see what happens here. No chance to defend themselves. (And not to mention that gun ownership is one of our rights)
While I'm American, conservative and definitely an advocate of the second amendment and agree that Obama and Biden aren't likely to be very supportive of gun ownership, I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss a topic like this. One geared more toward politics in general or guns would be better. Of course this is the off-topic portion of the forum, so maybe it is appropriate. Guess it's up to each person to decide.
Oh yeah, and that chart...yes, the US has a darker shade. Two points: 1) the US has a higher population than other areas of the world, so that can account for some of it. 2) There are even darker parts of that chart, and I'll bet private gun ownership isn't legal in those areas.
Oh yeah, and that chart...yes, the US has a darker shade. Two points: 1) the US has a higher population than other areas of the world, so that can account for some of it. 2) There are even darker parts of that chart, and I'll bet private gun ownership isn't legal in those areas.
Well, I've read all ten pages of this thread, and now my head hurts. If I may, allow me to sum up what I perceive to be the two extreme sides of this argument, and then my rebuttals.
"Guns are evil! Ban all guns, take all guns away from law-abiding citizens, and then no one will ever have guns!"
I'm sorry, but no. Unless there were a law-enforcement crackdown on illegal weapons the scope of which has never been seen before in America, there is absolutely no chance that even a slim percentage of the illegal weapons currently in possession of criminals would be siezed. Thus, you would have a disarmed populace and a still-armed criminal element. We do not have police on every street corner ready and waiting to pounce on criminals the instant they have a nefarious thought; some cities have reported 15 to 30 minutes between a call to 911 and a police cruiser arriving on-scene. While the following quote may be pro-gun propaganda, it also rings true far too often: "The police arrive just in time to draw a chalk outline around a body".
"Leave my guns alone! The gub'ment's gonna try to take my home and I'm gonna shoot 'em! Guns keep me safe from a repressive government!"
I'm sorry, but no. I honestly believe that the vast majority of people who claim this would, upon being confronted by a heavily-armed SWAT team, put their hands up and surrender quietly. It's all well and good to claim that you are the first, last and only line of defense against a government who is just waiting on that last order of black helicopters before they come to take you away, but when it comes to your 15-round magazine of 9mm ammunition versus a police sharpshooter and a ten-man team of trained officers with ballistic shields and shotguns, your chances are nil and you know it. It may be that the government will overstep all bounds someday, but don't even try to glorify it or make yourself out to be the next justice-bringing gunslinger.
Now. A little about me. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative; I believe that the government can do more with less. I do not belong to any political party, lobbyist group or "club" such as the NRA or MoveOn.org. I am also a casual shooter who qualified for a concealed-carry license at my first visit to a range, someone who received a general discharge from Army basic training after qualifying as an expert with an M16A2, and someone who hopes to one day become a professional competitive shooter despite the fact that I do not currently own a firearm. I can also refer to two occurances which show the value of an armed populace, and the danger of disarming one.
1) The North Hollywood Shootout [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout].
In a nutshell: Two previously-arrested felons, heavily armed with illegally-modified weapons and illegally-obtained ammunition, protected by considerable body armor and heavily dosed with barbituates, instigated a bank robbery and then engaged in a 40-minute shootout with police. The standard-issue 9mm and .38 rounds the officers were issued were useless against the body armor, and they actually had to requisition semi-automatic rifles from a nearby gun store until SWAT teams could move in.
Two men held off an entire police force for forty minutes. Can you imagine what an entire group of people like that could do, if their intent was to kill instead of rob?
Maybe something like this.
2) The terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26_November_2008_Mumbai_attacks].
I don't think I need to go into much detail with the "what happened", considering how recent this event was. However, think about this: India has some of the tightest gun-control laws in the world outside of abjectly banning them outright. Yet it is reported [http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/12/11/time-to-relax-indias-gun-control-laws-to-fight-militants/] that black-market weaponry of the grade the attackers used could be had for as little as $1500 (US) a piece. It took Indian security forces three days to regain control, after which nearly two hundred people had been killed and another three hundred were wounded.
Ten men held off an entire country's armed response for three days. Could these terrorists, none of whom wore body armor, have been stopped sooner if the citizens and tourists had been armed?
America already has stringent gun laws on its books already. The issue is that they are not enforced nearly as well as they should be. I am in favor of gun licensing and training, heavy penalties for crimes committed with firearms, and improved funding of police departments. Your average homeowner does not need ready access to weaponry designed to take on armored vehicles. But to say that all it takes is a law to disarm everyone, and that everyone will be safe, is the absolute height of fantasy. It's not going to happen in this world anytime soon.
"Guns are evil! Ban all guns, take all guns away from law-abiding citizens, and then no one will ever have guns!"
I'm sorry, but no. Unless there were a law-enforcement crackdown on illegal weapons the scope of which has never been seen before in America, there is absolutely no chance that even a slim percentage of the illegal weapons currently in possession of criminals would be siezed. Thus, you would have a disarmed populace and a still-armed criminal element. We do not have police on every street corner ready and waiting to pounce on criminals the instant they have a nefarious thought; some cities have reported 15 to 30 minutes between a call to 911 and a police cruiser arriving on-scene. While the following quote may be pro-gun propaganda, it also rings true far too often: "The police arrive just in time to draw a chalk outline around a body".
"Leave my guns alone! The gub'ment's gonna try to take my home and I'm gonna shoot 'em! Guns keep me safe from a repressive government!"
I'm sorry, but no. I honestly believe that the vast majority of people who claim this would, upon being confronted by a heavily-armed SWAT team, put their hands up and surrender quietly. It's all well and good to claim that you are the first, last and only line of defense against a government who is just waiting on that last order of black helicopters before they come to take you away, but when it comes to your 15-round magazine of 9mm ammunition versus a police sharpshooter and a ten-man team of trained officers with ballistic shields and shotguns, your chances are nil and you know it. It may be that the government will overstep all bounds someday, but don't even try to glorify it or make yourself out to be the next justice-bringing gunslinger.
Now. A little about me. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative; I believe that the government can do more with less. I do not belong to any political party, lobbyist group or "club" such as the NRA or MoveOn.org. I am also a casual shooter who qualified for a concealed-carry license at my first visit to a range, someone who received a general discharge from Army basic training after qualifying as an expert with an M16A2, and someone who hopes to one day become a professional competitive shooter despite the fact that I do not currently own a firearm. I can also refer to two occurances which show the value of an armed populace, and the danger of disarming one.
1) The North Hollywood Shootout [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout].
In a nutshell: Two previously-arrested felons, heavily armed with illegally-modified weapons and illegally-obtained ammunition, protected by considerable body armor and heavily dosed with barbituates, instigated a bank robbery and then engaged in a 40-minute shootout with police. The standard-issue 9mm and .38 rounds the officers were issued were useless against the body armor, and they actually had to requisition semi-automatic rifles from a nearby gun store until SWAT teams could move in.
Two men held off an entire police force for forty minutes. Can you imagine what an entire group of people like that could do, if their intent was to kill instead of rob?
Maybe something like this.
2) The terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26_November_2008_Mumbai_attacks].
I don't think I need to go into much detail with the "what happened", considering how recent this event was. However, think about this: India has some of the tightest gun-control laws in the world outside of abjectly banning them outright. Yet it is reported [http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/12/11/time-to-relax-indias-gun-control-laws-to-fight-militants/] that black-market weaponry of the grade the attackers used could be had for as little as $1500 (US) a piece. It took Indian security forces three days to regain control, after which nearly two hundred people had been killed and another three hundred were wounded.
Ten men held off an entire country's armed response for three days. Could these terrorists, none of whom wore body armor, have been stopped sooner if the citizens and tourists had been armed?
America already has stringent gun laws on its books already. The issue is that they are not enforced nearly as well as they should be. I am in favor of gun licensing and training, heavy penalties for crimes committed with firearms, and improved funding of police departments. Your average homeowner does not need ready access to weaponry designed to take on armored vehicles. But to say that all it takes is a law to disarm everyone, and that everyone will be safe, is the absolute height of fantasy. It's not going to happen in this world anytime soon.
There is no reason why people living outside of rural areas need guns. And there is absolutly no need for handguns ouside of military use.
Being a UK Resident, and in a pretty secluded bit to be fair out the way, I live in a town. It is a good 30 minute train ride to the nearest city [Birmingham] and even in a place like that you CAN find a place to sell you a gun. And pretty cheaply too. Alot of the time its legal disarmed or immitation pistols and things that have been made deadly by people.RetiarySword said:
Or its things smuggled in from other places in Europe, greece mainly for like knuckle-dusters and things.
Manchester I would assume to be even worse [moss side, say no more].
Its not too much harder than buying drugs, and depending on how shady a character you're dealing from they might offer to sell you a weapon.
Bad times.
That's a very blinkered point of view. I think you mean that *you* can see no reason for people outside rural areas to own guns; those who do see a need for them might well disagree, and their opinions are just as valid as yours.huntedannoyed said:
There's vermin control, sports shooting, hobby shooting, hunting at the weekend or on holiday, self-defence, and simply shooting for the fun of it.
And before you say that self-defence isn't a legitimate reason, remember this: the police is a reactive authority. We all wish the police could reliably stop crimes from happening, and from my acquaintances within the police I know they do their very best, but nobody can be everywhere - least of all an understaffed, underpaid, overworked police force. Chances are the best the police will be able to do is investigate a crime after the fact. And in some cases, that's not enough.