water cannon

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

again, points of view man. The right to bear arms has little to do with your hobby or hunting, if the right of self defence means being egocentric, then I'm one.

Do not confuse the right for self defense with the right to have a gun. If you have no idea how to use your fists, I'd advise a self defense course. Also helps a lot with Ego and the need to compensate..... with guns.

Totally agree, and I'd rather be armed.

You know, mature person now would say "totally agree, and we will have to find solutions for that" or "totally agree, we need to plan ahead to reduce the potential dangers to a minimum, as we are all in this boat if we like it or not."

However, your reply.....immature, irresponsible, emotional driven and with implied contempt for the fates of others. Exactly the kind of mindset one does not want to connect to a gun to. Are you so bound to prove my point?

btw:

Of course, there are less than 50k guns for 60 millions of people! I don't need a gun to defend myself from a gun waving murderer, but potentially for anybody who would try and commit a violent assault to me, my family or my property. How can you be happy to live in a society where you can't even provide for your family protection? Is it just a case of "let's hope it's not gonna happen to me", then if it happens you'll still say "tough"?

You only "need" to provide this protection if you create the conditions for that need. It's a self fullfilling prophecy, especially in tightly populated european countries. If a given society falls apart and violence spreads, then it would make sense to find the causes for that and solve it instead of fighting the symptons till the end of days.

You were at gunpoint yourself, which means that criminals can still get a pistol, so why shouldn't you? It's obvious that police forces can't limit the presence of illegal firearms in this country, so thank you very much, but I'd rather defend myself with my own means.
In that immediate stance you risked your life without being able to defend yourself. You hit the guy and he fled (which probably means his gun was fake), but what if you missed or if he decided he wanted more from you than just your wallet? It's insane to think you went through that and still think you shouldn't be able to ultimately defend yourself.

I have been at gunpoint myself when I was 19. Still live, though, and so does the one holding that gun. But it did not even require me to punch him, just told him to either shoot or to stick it where the sun never grows and leave me alone. Guess what he did? As I said, I rather take the risk of being threatend with a gun then to make society much more dangerous in general for some dubious arguments mostly born of pure Ego.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Do not confuse the right for self defense with the right to have a gun. If you have no idea how to use your fists, I'd advise a self defense course. Also helps a lot with Ego and the need to compensate..... with guns.

I've done self defence courses man, and I know how to defend myself by just using my body, but above all I also know its limitations. If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris. If you're happy to gamble with your life good for you, I care about mine, and have seen and lived enough to leave it all to chance. Some stuff we can't control, but other we can.

And what's with this stereotype of ego that needs to be compensated with guns? That's quite ridiculous, and typical of someone who never handled one. It's like saying "that guy is driving a Ferrari cos he has a small penis".. grow up man, envy is a bad bad thing.

You know, mature person now would say "totally agree, and we will have to find solutions for that" or "totally agree, we need to plan ahead to reduce the potential dangers to a minimum, as we are all in this boat if we like it or not."

I already found the solution for it, it's just a case of you not agreeing with it. If you want to think you live in a perfect world, with bees flying and honey streaming from rivers, you're up for a shock. We will NEVER be a peaceful society, confrontation is in our DNA and has been happening for thousands of years. I don't see why it's not mature only cos it doesn't agree with yours, it's a bit arrogant, don't you think?

However, your reply.....immature, irresponsible, emotional driven and with implied contempt for the fates of others. Exactly the kind of mindset one does not want to connect to a gun. Are you so bound to prove my point?

I'm sorry, but you're talking nonsense.
I handled guns for years and never had a problem, you (and two others here) think of people with firearms like a bunch of gung-hos with holsters and guns in their socks, ready to jump at any given chance. It's not like that, I'm not for free carrying of firearms, I'm for discipline and security, a demand that is necessary for our society, since our authorities are obviously incapable of offering a suitable swift answer in case of an aggression.

A mentality like yours is one that relies not only on an utopia, but also little and selfish, which back inside is all about "let's hope it won't happen to me".

Take some responsibilities for your society and your family, claim your right to defend them, don't just wait and hope others will do it for you.

It actually surprises me that some of you three (if not all) have families and think they're providing them with an adequate protection.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I've done self defence courses man, and I know how to defend myself by just using my body, but above all I also know its limitations. If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris. If you're happy to gamble with your life good for you, I care about mine, and have seen and lived enough to leave it all to chance. Some stuff we can't control, but other we can.

So when were you ever attacked by 6 robbers at the same time? You know, I actually do know people that never got robbed over their entire life. Actually, that applies to most people I know. This kind of argument makes it appear as if a robbery or a violent crime happens to anybody on a weekly basis and you always have to be prepared for it, as if we live here In Somalia or Iraq and death is only a trigger pull away. You are blowing the dangers of violent assault or armed robbery way out of proportion.

In fact, it is more likely that you get hit by a car or killed by a plane crash in Europe, even in the US, even in Russia and China. What's your solution to that? Never leave the house as it's the only means to protect your family? How can you be so afraid all the time?

And what's with this stereotype of ego that needs to be compensated with guns? That's quite ridiculous, and typical of someone who never handled one. It's like saying "that guy is driving a Ferrari cos he has a small penis".. grow up man, envy is a bad bad thing.

Believe me, I know to handle a gun. I actually do have the same fascination with guns and weapons as everybody else. I'd not be playing this game in the first place if this was not the case.

However, there is a difference in admitting to have that fun and fascination on an emotional level, and actually realizing that and the consequences those instincts can have in the long run. It's a matter of self discipline you owe your own intelligence.
Btw, forgive my Ego puns. It was just too classic to not to use it.

I already found the solution for it, it's just a case of you not agreeing with it. If you want to think you live in a perfect world, with bees flying and honey streaming from rivers, you're up for a shock.

The world is exactly what we make of it. Not more, not less.
Either you treat humanity as an instict driven, dangerous species that is a danger to itself and requires the constant need to violent retaliation and mutual assured destruction on an individual scale.

Or you treat them as a species that has the capability to overcome it's natural programming by applied intelligence.

Whatever view you chose, it applies to you as well.

We will NEVER be a peaceful society, confrontation is in our DNA and has been happening for thousands of years. I don't see why it's not mature only cos it doesn't agree with yours, it's a bit arrogant, don't you think?

Sorry, there are enough peaceful societies out there. These polemics lead nowhere. If you want to play the cynical "oooh the world is sooooo evil, kill or be killed! D:", feel free to do so, but do not expect to be taken serious with this lame world view. So how often were you beat up to make you that bitter? How many friends do you have if you think everybody is only out for confrontation? I very much suspect that your own life situation will disprove your words.

Men is a herd animal. He is contructed for cooperation. Even more important, the larger the coopertional body, the more complex and rewarding achievements can be accomplished. It's a matter of pure rationale.

Oh, btw, you will love that. There is a scientific argument that says that intelligence and rational discourse actually developed as a weapon as well, as those that were capable of employing their brain to win an argument had better chances to raise in the food chain. Maybe train that one a bit instead?

I'm sorry, but you're talking nonsense.
I handled guns for years and never had a problem, you (and two others here) think of people with firearms like a bunch of gung-hos with holsters and guns in their socks, ready to jump at any given chance. It's not like that, I'm not for free carrying of firearms, I'm for discipline and security, a demand that is necessary for our society, since our authorities are obviously incapable of offering a suitable swift answer in case of an aggression.

No, I consider gun addicts in general as cool and generous people that actually do not want to hurt anybody, but simply do not think though the problem of broadly applying their hobbies and dometimes very warped world views. And I have no idea how your authorities work, but ours are good enough to bring down crime rates for the last 200 years on a constant basis, living in a country and a society that grows ever more secure. And it does not require gun ownership.

A mentality like yours is one that relies not only on an utopia, but also little and selfish, which back inside is all about "let's hope it won't happen to me".

You can't imagine how often I heared that Utopia argument. Appears to be standart in any such debate. Is there a handbook or something floating around titled "how to defend gun ownership for dummies" that I missed?

I will repeat, the world is what you make out of it. And the demanour you carry around will influence the people around you and vice versa. If you argue the world being such a bad place, it "will" become this place. It's like in the financial market, once you talk about a company losing it's trust, it "will" lose that trust. So if you are complaining about such a cruel world, then you actually help create it. Men is not a constant variable, the species always adapts to the situation and the signals given by others around.

Take some responsibilities for your society and your family, claim your right to defend them, don't just wait and hope others will do it for you.

It actually surprises me that some of you three (if not all) have families and think they're providing them with an adequate protection.

Simple maths.

Allowing gun ownership and raising the risk of being shot in general due to a much higher number of weapons available even to people that have no connections to the black market, with a certain chance that maybe, if being threatend, I can actually make use of my own gun,

or

Having only the means to defend myself with my body and objects lying around, but with a hugely reduced chance of that ever having to become nessecary in the first place, especially when children starting to have their own lives at nights without me having the means to pretect them 24/7.

Sorry, you argue simply for your own sake here, Sternjaeger, do not try to bring others families in here with such lousy arguments. You can either take the hard road, set an example, swim against the stream and influence the people surrounding you in such a positive way that they themselves start to influence others, or you can let your standarts being dictated by the scum of this world and help them dragging everything down.

Just do not complain when the bill for that is served.

[winny]

Brilliant. So your way of dealing with robbers and rioters would be to murder them all?

And you want to be able to own a gun?

And by the way I have 'spoiled' my voting card on 3 of the last 4 general elections. I went to the polling station and wrote none of the above.

So you're wrong again. Another massive assumption.

[MD_Titus]

Just one more really.

Commendable post bewolf.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

Brilliant. So your way of dealing with robbers and rioters would be to murder them all?

Uh?! When did I say that?

And you want to be able to own a gun?

I already are, ta!

And by the way I have 'spoiled' my voting card on 3 of the last 4 general elections. I went to the polling station and wrote none of the above.

yes, of course

So you're wrong again. Another massive assumption.

it was based on what you said: "I don't vote".

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Uh?! When did I say that?

You said about the rioters "What kind of low life scum idiot does what we saw happening? Someone we surely won't miss." Why would we miss them? Where did they go? The implication was shoot them.
You also said about robbers "If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris." Implying that if you had a gun (the subject about which we are talking) the outcome would be different. So unless they are attacking you in your house, you'd need to have that firearm in your possesion, in public. Which has nothing to do with your 'more explicit regulations' one of which was safe storage.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yes, of course

So now you're calling me a liar?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

it was based on what you said: "I don't vote".

I didn't vote for anyone.
You assumed it was out of lazyness, which is lazy thinking.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by winny

You said about the rioters "What kind of low life scum idiot does what we saw happening? Someone we surely won't miss." Why would we miss them? Where did they go? The implication was shoot them.

What?! It's your assumption! IF they get arrested and put in the slammer, I won't miss them.

You also said about robbers "If I get attacked by 6 robbers what shall I do? Put up a fight? I don't see the outcome of such a scenario as a positive one, unless you're Chuck Norris." Implying that if you had a gun (the subject about which we are talking) the outcome would be different.

..erm, Chuck Norris the man who kicks all a$$es, the internet joke about him being the ultimate a$$ kicker? The idea that anybody could have a gun is a deterrent, not shooting people in the face. You really have a distorted view of gun ownership.

So unless they are attacking you in your house, you'd need to have that firearm in your possesion, in public. Which has nothing to do with your 'more explicit regulations' one of which was safe storage.

You're nitpicking. It's not about whether I have a gun with me or not, but the potential, which would keep criminals far from me and my household. Don't think of me for a minute (I know you're obsessed), try and think of a lonely woman, who's physically weaker than a man on average, how's she supposed to defend herself in case of an attack? By talking herself out of it?

So now you're calling me a liar?

You said it, I called you other stuff.. besides what's this "so you're calling me this or that" bull? What are we, in primary school?

I didn't vote for anyone.
You assumed it was out of lazyness, which is lazy thinking.

if you don't go to vote you're lazy, if you go and deliver a blank vote then you're not. You are telling me that you haven't missed one election since you've been eligible to vote and you always delivered blanks?

[MD_Titus]

It would seem to be the case bewolf.

Also stern, your ignorance of the underlying issues related to the riots, in comparison to your judgements of the french and greek riots is puzzling, if not just a vast oversimplification to justify your untenable stance.

I'd like to clarify my statement regarding not voting as well though - in some cases it is registering a discontent with the establishment, rather than a laziness issue, and if informed it is no less a responaible position to hold.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

It would seem to be the case bewolf.

yeah, three of you fine armchair psychologists have finally assessed what's the matter with me.. thank God, now I can pursue a life of happiness and peace! THANKS!

Also stern, your ignorance of the underlying issues related to the riots, in comparison to your judgements of the french and greek riots is puzzling, if not just a vast oversimplification to justify your untenable stance.

well whenever I go deep into parallels I get blamed of going off topic. But feel free to elaborate..

I'd like to clarify my statement regarding not voting as well though - in some cases it is registering a discontent with the establishment, rather than a laziness issue, and if informed it is no less a responaible position to hold.

yeeeeah sure.. ever heard of blank vote? Don't try that card with me buddy, not voting is just plain lazy and ignorant.