Acantha Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Aftermath of British gun ban...so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 That's some pretty stupid stereotyping you got going. But, to play along with your stupid game... Again, I have no problem with gun ownership (well, maybe some, but not the basic idea of a person being able to arm themselves), but in my life, I have never had use for a gun. Now, I have dealt with some fairly dangerous people in my life, and have guns pointed at me, on more than one occasion. A gun in my possession would have done nothing positive, in those situations...even if I were a skilled marksman. I managed to resolve the situations, with no violence and, in most of the cases, to my advantage. I have never been harmed, or robbed, in those situations. Of course, if I were in law enforcement, I would need a gun. I understand that certain people, in certain professions, need to be armed for their protection. And, while I support the right for an ordinary citizen to bear arms, I'm not sure why an ordinary person would choose to arm themselves. (I'm not talking about hunting weapons, but handguns and such.) Here's what I think. I face the world without fear. My wits, and personality, have been able to handle any situation my recklessness (or bad fortune) has gotten me into. Dullards like you, Helmet, Boomer, etc. seem to live in fear of the world, and seem sure that you will need to protect yourself with a weapon. I can understand, as your wits aren't likely to be of much use to you, in a sticky situation. I am certain any home invader,or car jacker, would yield to your rapier like intellect. I will keep my .45,thank you.We need to send the dean over there to explain to them how lucky they are. A bag of gas is much cheaper then a Glock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Britain banned guns? Oh goodness, terrible. Terrible idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Britain banned guns? Oh goodness, terrible. Terrible idea! I wonder if anybody there still gets killed by handguns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Wow.... that Tony Martin sh-- is completely !@#$ed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 We need to send the dean over there to explain to them how lucky they are. A bag of gas is much cheaper then a Glock. Geez....I didn't realize The Dean was a superhero. A real James Bond. What a schmoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 1. Usually The Dean is a fairly rational guy, and normally he can support his position with a reasoned argument. 2. Not the case here. What's really at the core of this? Clearly, the Dean is suggesting that somehow encountering the kind of trouble that can only be resolved with a gun means that you either: made a series of bad choices and put yourself there, or, you chose a certain profession. Worse, he is saying that if you choose to have a gun, then you probably suffer from some mental defect. None of this is true. First, The Dean's position does not take into account a very simple, yet powerful, force: random chance. If you happen to run into criminal intent on harming you, it's far more likely that you/your house were the first "mark" that came along, rather than based on some specific choice you made. Random chance = the end of The Dean's argument. Second, I find it fascinating that the Dean(and most liberals) believe that somehow the reason they haven't needed a gun, so far, can be attributed to their choices. That, somehow, they are not subject to the same random chance that the supposed mere-mortal victims of criminals are. That's like saying you will never get into a car accident because you are simply too smart. It's fascinating because I try to imagine the massive ego/affected thinking/other pathology that would be necessary for such a statement to be made. How can people who claim to be so smart, and usually are, find themselves, and their worthless argument, totally confounded by something so easy to comprehend as "random chance"? If we choose to live in the suburbs, or rely on our wit, or simply pretend that we live in a world without evil, that it always comes down to "differing points of view", then we are choosing a consistently more dangerous mental defect than paranoia: hubris. And, if we choose to look down on people who feel that a gun is necessary for their protection...well, looking down on people is nothing new for liberals...but it's never OK. Funny how they will look down on a guy who buys a gun to protect his home, but refuse to look down on the a-hole criminal, who is the reason for buying the gun to begin with. They always blame the a-holes upbringing or something else, instead of the damn a-hole himself. Selective compassion? Or, just plain stupidity? Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 1. Usually The Dean is a fairly rational guy, and normally he can support his position with a reasoned argument.2. Not the case here. What's really at the core of this? Clearly, the Dean is suggesting that somehow encountering the kind of trouble that can only be resolved with a gun means that you either: made a series of bad choices and put yourself there, or, you chose a certain profession. Worse, he is saying that if you choose to have a gun, then you probably suffer from some mental defect. None of this is true. First, The Dean's position does not take into account a very simple, yet powerful, force: random chance. If you happen to run into criminal intent on harming you, it's far more likely that you/your house were the first "mark" that came along, rather than based on some specific choice you made. Random chance = the end of The Dean's argument. Second, I find it fascinating that the Dean(and most liberals) believe that somehow the reason they haven't needed a gun, so far, can be attributed to their choices. That, somehow, they are not subject to the same random chance that the supposed mere-mortal victims of criminals are. That's like saying you will never get into a car accident because you are simply too smart. It's fascinating because I try to imagine the massive ego/affected thinking/other pathology that would be necessary for such a statement to be made. How can people who claim to be so smart, and usually are, find themselves, and their worthless argument, totally confounded by something so easy to comprehend as "random chance"? If we choose to live in the suburbs, or rely on our wit, or simply pretend that we live in a world without evil, that it always comes down to "differing points of view", then we are choosing a consistently more dangerous mental defect than paranoia: hubris. And, if we choose to look down on people who feel that a gun is necessary for their protection...well, looking down on people is nothing new for liberals...but it's never OK. Funny how they will look down on a guy who buys a gun to protect his home, but refuse to look down on the a-hole criminal, who is the reason for buying the gun to begin with. They always blame the a-holes upbringing or something else, instead of the damn a-hole himself. Selective compassion? Or, just plain stupidity? Take your pick. Because it dovetails beautifully with their 9/11 theory's. The US is evil, therefore was attacked. If we live enlightened lives,such as the dean and and anyone in Sweden,harm will never come our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 1. Usually The Dean is a fairly rational guy, and normally he can support his position with a reasoned argument.2. Not the case here. What's really at the core of this? Clearly, the Dean is suggesting that somehow encountering the kind of trouble that can only be resolved with a gun means that you either: made a series of bad choices and put yourself there, or, you chose a certain profession. Worse, he is saying that if you choose to have a gun, then you probably suffer from some mental defect. None of this is true. First, The Dean's position does not take into account a very simple, yet powerful, force: random chance. If you happen to run into criminal intent on harming you, it's far more likely that you/your house were the first "mark" that came along, rather than based on some specific choice you made. Random chance = the end of The Dean's argument. Second, I find it fascinating that the Dean(and most liberals) believe that somehow the reason they haven't needed a gun, so far, can be attributed to their choices. That, somehow, they are not subject to the same random chance that the supposed mere-mortal victims of criminals are. That's like saying you will never get into a car accident because you are simply too smart. It's fascinating because I try to imagine the massive ego/affected thinking/other pathology that would be necessary for such a statement to be made. How can people who claim to be so smart, and usually are, find themselves, and their worthless argument, totally confounded by something so easy to comprehend as "random chance"? If we choose to live in the suburbs, or rely on our wit, or simply pretend that we live in a world without evil, that it always comes down to "differing points of view", then we are choosing a consistently more dangerous mental defect than paranoia: hubris. And, if we choose to look down on people who feel that a gun is necessary for their protection...well, looking down on people is nothing new for liberals...but it's never OK. Funny how they will look down on a guy who buys a gun to protect his home, but refuse to look down on the a-hole criminal, who is the reason for buying the gun to begin with. They always blame the a-holes upbringing or something else, instead of the damn a-hole himself. Selective compassion? Or, just plain stupidity? Take your pick. Stupid Brits--should have stormed parliament with their guns! That was something worth fighting for....it's called freedom! Rather die on my feet than live on my knees! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts