SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Justification does not prevent CHOICE. IMO, BY DEFINITION, if you know the law and intentionally violate it, you have CHOSEN to be a criminal.




From the Meriam Webster dictionary...


--Outlaw.

Great theory. But just as unrealistic as communism. A real choice you only have with a solid overview of all chances and possebilities, their consequences and results.

I yet have to meet a single person fully capable of reaching that.

Besides, ultimately you only rationalize what your stomach gives you. The "will" to decide against your own stomach on a constant basis is not given to many. If it were, the world would be a much better place.

Free will does not mean rationality and an inherent ability to vager between good and evil. That do your guts for you. It just means the absence of an outside power forcing your will.

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

And we get even further evidence that Nearmiss and co are monumentally ignorant about the very topic they go on about.

Meanwhile, Nearmiss has sent be a PM telling me to "go back to that thread and delete those postings very quietly or be banned". I have no intention of doing so. Instead, I shall be contacting 1C directly, asking them whether they consider it appropriate that 'moderators' (LOL!) abuse what is allegedly a 'no-politics' forum to push offensive and paranoid partisan politics, and gloat on the death of teenagers. I expect that Nearmiss will abuse his position further by banning me, and quite likely by trying to erase all evidence of his gross misuse of his powers from the forum. I suggest that all those who are of a similar opinion as me likewise contact 1C directly, and also call for Nearmiss's dismissal. It cannot possibly be in 1C's interest to have a forum already troubled by trolls and the like further inflamed by such behaviour. This has nothing to do with any 1C product, and as an 'off-topic' subject falls entirely within the "Political and religious discussions are prohibited" rule supposedly enforced here. Evidently though, what the rule means to Nearmiss (and sadly, other moderators too, it appears) is that "Political and religious discussions are prohibited unless the moderators support the politics being pushed".

Of course, if 1C actually are in favour of allowing their so-called 'moderators' to use forums for pro-gun political propaganda of the most vile kind (tinted by at least suspicions of overt racism on the part of several other contrubutors: e.g. " these lower life forms will be removed from the DNA pool because of lead poisoning"), one would have to ask whether one should be supporting the company by buying their products. I very much doubt that they are (it would make little sense from an economic viewpoint), but I will have to see how they respond - and if necessary raise this elsewhere. I'm quite sure that sections of the media would be interested to see how an industry that claims (with at least some evidence in support of their position) that 'in-game' violence does not promote violence in the real world could be encouraging the facile and uncaring celebration of such violence, along with racism, xenophobia, paranoia, and all the other garbage that accompanies this world view.

Haha hey so why was this thread created anyway? It was worded in such a way to make one think a shooting happened. It wasn't to discuss a shooting sport at the Olympics.

As the OP so pointed out his hope was to elicit some debate on the UN small arms treaty which failed today and will never apply to anyone individual anyway.

Good job moderators in allowing discussion anyway.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

And we get even further evidence that Nearmiss and co are monumentally ignorant about the very topic they go on about.

Meanwhile, Nearmiss has sent be a PM telling me to "go back to that thread and delete those postings very quietly or be banned". I have no intention of doing so. Instead, I shall be contacting 1C directly, asking them whether they consider it appropriate that 'moderators' (LOL!) abuse what is allegedly a 'no-politics' forum to push offensive and paranoid partisan politics, and gloat on the death of teenagers. I expect that Nearmiss will abuse his position further by banning me, and quite likely by trying to erase all evidence of his gross misuse of his powers from the forum. I suggest that all those who are of a similar opinion as me likewise contact 1C directly, and also call for Nearmiss's dismissal. It cannot possibly be in 1C's interest to have a forum already troubled by trolls and the like further inflamed by such behaviour. This has nothing to do with any 1C product, and as an 'off-topic' subject falls entirely within the "Political and religious discussions are prohibited" rule supposedly enforced here. Evidently though, what the rule means to Nearmiss (and sadly, other moderators too, it appears) is that "Political and religious discussions are prohibited unless the moderators support the politics being pushed".

Of course, if 1C actually are in favour of allowing their so-called 'moderators' to use forums for pro-gun political propaganda of the most vile kind (tinted by at least suspicions of overt racism on the part of several other contrubutors: e.g. " these lower life forms will be removed from the DNA pool because of lead poisoning"), one would have to ask whether one should be supporting the company by buying their products. I very much doubt that they are (it would make little sense from an economic viewpoint), but I will have to see how they respond - and if necessary raise this elsewhere. I'm quite sure that sections of the media would be interested to see how an industry that claims (with at least some evidence in support of their position) that 'in-game' violence does not promote violence in the real world could be encouraging the facile and uncaring celebration of such violence, along with racism, xenophobia, paranoia, and all the other garbage that accompanies this world view.

Relax, Andy. It is the Internet. You knew what swims here. Life is too short to waste it with anger over that =)

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

You have to take 2 tests to get a license to own a car, perhaps there should be a written and competency test for gun ownership (as well as a license).... actually not a bad idea, Outlaw!

Yes, BUT, those test are so woefully inadequate that they might as well not even do it. The only REAL reason for those tests is to generate funds for the ticketing authority. OK, I'm being a bit facetious but I think you understand my point that 99,9% of the drivers here in the US suck, even the ones that got 100% on the tests.

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

would you object to:
1. reasonable waiting period on gun purchase
2. background check for all gun purchases
3. limiting sale of certain magazines (based on capacity)
4. so called assault weapon ban?

1 - No, because I have read at least 6 accounts of people who purchased a firearm because they were afraid of a specific individual and used it THAT DAY to save their life.

2 - Yes, and it is implemented now in the United States.

3 - Yes, nothing more than 100 rounds works for me. Note that this should not apply to belted weapons because they are never used in crimes and a collector should not be subjected to prosecution during a display because he accidentally miscounted. I picked 100 rounds because I see this as a step process that will simply lead to more and more limits on capacity. BTW, thanks for using the correct term. I'm so sick of hearing the word, "clip"!

4 - No, because I don't want some maniac to decide to shoot me with a 7mm mag because he couldn't get a .223 or 7.62x39. Even though you reduce my chances of getting hit at all, IF I do get hit, I will not survive a 7mm mag round to the torso. Note that I fully admit that this reasoning is questionable, however, considering that in such a situation I will be charging the individual doing the shooting, I expect I will get hit.

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

p.s. - I don't wish you or your family to have any misfortunes and I'm glad you were there to protect them...

Thanks!! For the record, they were not my family though. In fact, I only vaguely knew them.

--Outlaw.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I yet have to meet a single person fully capable of reaching that.

Then, for you, choice does not exist at all so, like raaaid and his matrix theory, there's no point in even attempting to make a point.

However, in the real world where the rest of us live, if he can kick my door in or walk away, he has a choice.

--Outlaw.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Sometimes it is frustrating to argue with you, Stern. It is as if you intentionally misunderstand me.

What I am argueing about is not the individual situation. I actually agree, in many ways a gun, in the modern world, helps out in certain situations. Though I think it is quite obvious even here that people overestimate their ability to actually use a gun when it "really" counts. It is much more about "feeling" safe, not about actually being so.

I understand you perfectly, but personally I will never accept to give up my guns because someone tells me I'm safe or because it will make my country a safer place. I know I'm fit to own and operate firearms, and as long as I have all my marbles and behave according to certain standards (i.e. frequenting gun clubs), I pose no threat at all to the rest of the society, and surely not more than the drunk driver or the average criminal. So no, I won't let the government get my guns and destroy them for their political agenda. When I was told the horror stories of what happened here in the 90s with the seizing and destruction of thousands of pistols.. man what a sad day for democracy that must have been...

However, my big problem here really is that those situations arise in the first place.
And all immidiate situation solutions you laid down are counter productive to longterm solutions.
You prefer the quick fix over the, argueably more beneficial, long term perspective.
I am not so sure that this has proven a good course of action in any category over history.

sorry Beo, but if short term solution means saving lives, I'll stick to owning guns. I'm not ready to become a martyr nor I would want anybody else to be one. You had a shocking experience, but don't think for a minute that gun control would actually mean you or your loved ones wouldn't live the same experience again. Even in this gun-freak-control country they regularly seize assault rifles, because criminals do not abide by the rules of our society.

This article is from 2008, but a friend that works at the London Metro told me things haven't improved at all, and that during last year's riots there was the serious fear that some police officer would have been shot in retribution, that's why many watched as the thugs destroyed the shops...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Then, for you, choice does not exist at all so, like raaaid and his matrix theory, there's no point in even attempting to make a point.

However, in the real world where the rest of us live, if he can kick my door in or walk away, he has a choice.

--Outlaw.

Bullocks. Choice certainly does exist. Simply not as that almighty descision tool you make it out to be. If that were the case, please tell me why in religions hardly anyone decides to join another religion, despite each religion claiming being the best one?

Ppl have much less choice in life then you might think, and that ceretainly is not covered by either/or, black and white, only the extremes views.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I understand you perfectly, but personally I will never accept to give up my guns because someone tells me I'm safe or because it will make my country a safer place. I know I'm fit to own and operate firearms, and as long as I have all my marbles and behave according to certain standards (i.e. frequenting gun clubs), I pose no threat at all to the rest of the society, and surely not more than the drunk driver or the average criminal. So no, I won't let the government get my guns and destroy them for their political agenda. When I was told the horror stories of what happened here in the 90s with the seizing and destruction of thousands of pistols.. man what a sad day for democracy that must have been...

sorry Beo, but if short term solution means saving lives, I'll stick to owning guns. I'm not ready to become a martyr nor I would want anybody else to be one. You had a shocking experience, but don't think for a minute that gun control would actually mean you or your loved ones wouldn't live the same experience again. Even in this gun-freak-control country they regularly seize assault rifles, because criminals do not abide by the rules of our society.

This article is from 2008, but a friend that works at the London Metro told me things haven't improved at all, and that during last year's riots there was the serious fear that some police officer would have been shot in retribution, that's why many watched as the thugs destroyed the shops...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

Now we are moving into Pathos? Sad day for democracy?

You want to safe lives by keeping up the conditions that take so many lifes to begin with? What?

You like guns? Nothing wrong with that, so do I. You want to keep them? Fine, I know decent folks who own guns. We disagree, but we disagree on other things as well. Politics and majority voting will have their say here.

But please don't come up with such desperate arguments. I nearly spilled my Apple Juice when I read that.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Bullocks. Choice certainly does exist. Simply not as that almighty descision tool you make it out to be. If that were the case, please tell me why in religions hardly anyone decides to join another religion, despite each religion claiming being the best one?

Ppl have much less choice in life then you might think, and that ceretainly is not covered by either/or, black and white, only the extremes views.

My bad, I misinterpreted your use of the word "will" to mean "free will". You meant it in the context of willpower.

Similarly, you misinterpreted Stern's use of the word "will" to mean willpower when he meant, "free will".

However, your statement that no one, "choses", to be a criminal is, for the reasons I stated, completely unsupportable.

Furthermore, I never said anything about the nature of any choice, almighty or otherwise.

--Outlaw.

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Youtube has large numbers of carefully documented accounts of atrocities associated with gun control.


Britons aren't happy about gun bans

nearmiss, do you have any sort of ability to distinguish between the historical record and propaganda? Do you actually believe this stuff? Really?

Look, if you guys across the pond want to have your toys - well thats fine. Last time I looked the US was a pretty active democracy and I'm sure if the people wanted to get rid of guns in your society their senators and congressmen would oblige with a bill amending the constitution. That domestic gun sales would seem to be on a permanent upward curve shows that lots of people seem to want them in your society.

Well thats no problem to me as a Brit, it's your call but please, please don't post utter, UTTER b/s about the sometimes tragic history of the rest of the world and link it to some wholly laughable argument about guns=freedom.
That just makes the rest of the civilised world regard you all as a bunch of gun-toting loonies.

As a Brit we enjoy the safety of some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the world - thank heavens!! We just don't need 'em as the chances of coming across someone armed with a gun in every day life are almost zero and we like it that way.

Don't believe me? Here you go;
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25341

Every Brit who posted in this thread stated they were against a relaxation of our firearms laws, even a couple who live abroad did so too!