| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by zts16  | | Well, the problem with letting people walk around proudly displaying their guns is that although they may be perfectly aware in their own heads that
they don't plan on shooting anybody, anyone else who sees them will have no idea whether they're just an innocent freedom lovin' 'murrican or someone
who's about to start shooting people. I'd certainly feel very uncomfortable seeing someone in a restaurant with an assault rifle, and would probably
leave. |
I would also leave for similar reasons although I firmly believe living in excess fear is not living at all. You just do not walk around with high
powered semi auto rifles whether on slings or not in polite society. 30 years in downtown Phoenix I never went out with less than a .357 or a .45 auto
on my hip. I would never have considered carrying a rifle. If you were ever in a situation a weapon was required only an idiot would choose a rifle in
close quarters. By the time you swung it around and aimed you would be lead heavy. No speed with such a weapon. Also even in areas carrying is common,
a rifle speaks intimidation not self defense. If you carry a weapon in society carry with discretion or stay home. It is not about what is legal it is
about what is acceptable in polite society and these rifle toting fools only serve to sway the public mindset into allowing more rights of self
defense to be legislated away. Idiots politically shooting their own feet, nothing more. They do us harm not good because intimidation is all they
accomplish. Not awareness of rights as they so often claim.
An armed society is a polite society. This is not just a saying it is a fact. People are far less prone to be abusive if they realize consequences may
be dire for them. In 91 there was a string of gang initiations shooting people on the freeways. I had a dual holster and carried a pair of matching
.45's one on each side. That got looks often, most normally see someone only carrying a single sidearm usually discretely, the proper way. I never
went anywhere my guns were not welcome. I was never bothered by people and never ended up in a dangerous situation, mostly because the wise pay
attention to their surroundings. Yet so many I knew in 30 years there that chided me eventually ended up telling a story of the day they got robbed. I
never did. My own sister walked across the street to a 7-11 with her 10 year old son and after crossing at the light a 17 year old walked up grabbed
her son by the collar, held him up off the ground and pointed a .38 at her demanding her money or he would shoot them both. No cops anywhere in sight
in the middle of the day. That was right off 43rd Ave between Camelback and Bethany Home, if you know the area you know how busy and how much traffic
is there. The punk had no fear and did not care that likely 500 people saw him. Yet no one helped. Too afraid. After that she started carrying as well
and never made fun of me again. Also, she was never robbed again.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Oscilllator
National Hazard
Posts: 659
Registered: 8-10-2012
Location: The aqueous layer
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent
it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4618
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Yes, I agree with the last two posts to the extent that while I have no desire to carry a gun myself, I don't exactly have a problem with people
carrying in a discreet and non-flashy way, as described by IrC if it makes them feel comfortable (as long as there are strict regulations regarding
who can own guns, i.e. only sane people with no criminal history). Carrying a rifle around is completely pointless. The only purpose it serves is
showing off and gaining attention. People who carry such weapons are a nuisance, like someone who drives around with no muffler on their car on
purpose.
|
|
|
violet sin
International Hazard
Posts: 1482
Registered: 2-9-2012
Location: Daydreaming of uraninite...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Good
|
|
I find it funny checking into a motel carrying all your guns( buck hunting, not shenanigans) wasn't even about to leave them in the truck for some
crack head to steal. a couple of times, some of the other guests found it startling, as they opened their rooms to go out for dinner and see us
walking down the hall with 2-3 guns apiece. we were all wearing camo and talking politely to eachother, so it deff didn't come off like we were
storming the place. we would just smile and nod, mention something about opening day was in two days and then the look of relief came over them...
this is cali, and there is no open carry. but they were all in cases, some with locks. we hunt on public land and earn our meat, no guided BS. the
only reason I mention this, is I have been around guns all my life, and the couple times in a hotel were the only times I ever interacted with the
general public w/ firearms. I try to stay away from places where you would need one in public. give me forests, hills, mountains and beaches any
day, but for god's sake, don't drag me into the city 
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Oscilllator | Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent
it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence. |
I think it is more nuts for a people to willingly surrender their arms, especially since fairly recent history (<100 years) is proof that even
'good governments' can go very bad. "less guns = less shooting"; How sad it would be to have a knife or a club do you
in because you had nothing to defend yourself with. Even in a nation without guns. If the attacker is very large or in numbers their 'hand tools' will
be as dangerous to you as any firearm. Likely more painful as well. Also for proof of concept a comparison must be included in the rate of gun deaths
before and after you gave up your arms. Did it help that much to lower the rate? Or is it worse? I do not know but I am sure those stats exist
somewhere.
Until you can show me a world without a single criminal or evil person in it you cannot show a world where there is zero possibility that one day you
will become a victim of violence. Even down under. You will find that guns are owned by citizens in many nations, and in many only rarely or not at
all. By this I mean citizens legally allowed ownership by their laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation
An old saying "if guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns". Look at gun deaths per 100k people per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...
In Mexico citizens outside of special circumstances cannot own guns yet their rate 11.17 is higher than the US 10.3.
Argentina 10.05
Brazil 19.03
Colombia 28.14
El Salvador 46.85
Greece 4.76
Guatemala 36.38
Honduras 64.8
Jamaica 39.74
Panama 17.6
South Africa 21.51
Swaziland 37.6
Uruguay 14.01
Venezuela 50.9
Even in one of your 'civilized' nations close to (or part of Europe; I am unfamiliar with the politics over there) Greece, the rate is nearly half
that of the US and we're talking a much smaller country.
Brazil "extremely severe restrictions were made by the federal government since 2002 making it virtually impossible to obtain a carry permit". Yet the
rate above is 19.03, nearly twice the US. In fact in these nations with rates several times the US, the laws are at the same time some of the most
restrictive. Which reinforces "if guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns". I find it odd that I hear many speak very often about the US, while never
actually doing a comparison elsewhere. Why is that? Because it does not suit your preconceived 'politically correct notions'? Why is it people in
other countries are constantly complaining about gun ownership here yet never mention countries where the rate is 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 times higher? Not a
word ever. Neither is any thought given to the legal ownership rates in comparison to these numbers.
My main point is no matter what you may think of guns here, there, or anywhere, I for one choose not to be a helpless victim who watches his family
robbed tortured raped and murdered (or any combination) while whining 'if only I could have stopped this' or 'if only there was a cop around when you
need one'. In simple terms I choose not to be a helpless sheep like victim if I can at all avoid it. One never knows when or where evil will strike or
whether they will be able to prevail. Ask a Christian surrounded by ISIS in the Middle East right now if they wish they were armed and at least fight
to survive rather than watching their small children's heads being chopped off and stuck on poles. Yes that has been and still is occurring over there
right now and if you do not believe it you are a blind fool. Evil exists right now in this world in every single country and one must decide if they
wish to be or not to be a helpless victim. Or do they want to show up at the pearly gates thinking to themselves 'it was only one guy, if only I could
have defended myself'.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
adamsium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 180
Registered: 9-4-2012
Location: \ƚooɿ\
Member Is Offline
Mood: uprooting
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Oscilllator | Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent
it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence. |
Everybody here in Australia thinks it's nuts?
Some of us here in Australia think it's nuts that our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things,
including anything that one might use to defend themselves. 'Nanny state' is becoming an understatement when it comes to Australia.
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | Quote: Originally posted by zts16 | | Well, the problem with letting people walk around proudly displaying their guns is that although they may be perfectly aware in their own heads that
they don't plan on shooting anybody, anyone else who sees them will have no idea whether they're just an innocent freedom lovin' 'murrican or someone
who's about to start shooting people. I'd certainly feel very uncomfortable seeing someone in a restaurant with an assault rifle, and would probably
leave. |
I would also leave for similar reasons although I firmly believe living in excess fear is not living at all. You just do not walk around with high
powered semi auto rifles whether on slings or not in polite society. 30 years in downtown Phoenix I never went out with less than a .357 or a .45 auto
on my hip.
|
Isn't consciously equipping and carrying a weapon out everywhere you go somewhat indicative of "living in excess fear"?
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | . . . our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things, including anything that one might use to
defend themselves. |
OTOH, your paranoia might be more easily treated than accidental gunshot wounds!
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | 30 years in downtown Phoenix I never went out with less than a .357 or a .45 auto on my hip. |
Thankfully, I can't even begin to imagine what that level of pervasive dread might feel like ─ but it seems to reflect a society that appears to
West Europeans to be terminally screwed-up . . .
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise | | Quote: | | 30 years in downtown Phoenix I never went out with less than a .357 or a .45 auto on my hip. |
Thankfully, I can't even begin to imagine what that level of pervasive dread might feel like ─ but it seems to reflect a society that appears to
West Europeans to be terminally screwed-up . . .
|
I don't know whatever happened to Phoenix, but I've never felt an urge to carry a firearm in downtown New York or downtown Chicago. I assure you that
while the U.S. is pretty screwed-up in general, it's not to the level he's claiming. If we just stopped letting the mentally ill own handguns...
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
adamsium, trying to reason with liberals is pointless. I will prove it to you. Just wait and read the replies which follow this post.
Not at all hissingnoise, and No Tears Only Dreams Now. In fact I willfully chose to carry arms due to the realistic view that as long as a nonzero
chance of evil coming my way exists I choose to be one not subject helplessly to it. For your point of view to have validity you should require your
police and military's to also disarm. Why is it you do not? Might it be that evil does exist? That other nations might attack? Why don't you require
every soul in the EU to disarm? Your citizens, police, military. Get rid of your nukes as well, your bombs, all weapons. Including clubs, pitchforks,
anything one might defend themselves or their country with. I will sit back over here and watch lemming history unfold.
You are being invaded just as we are, in a few decades of out breeding you, your nation will no longer exist. I just read 'Mohammed' is the most
popular name in Norway. I would have thought it was Thor. Oh wait, it was long ago. So two things are happening there, one a doom to the victims of
crime on an individual basis, the other a doom to your nation as a whole. Pardon us 'crazy Americans' who choose not to pass silently into the night,
into darkness. Whether as individuals who choose not to be a crime victim, or as citizens who choose not to see our nations demise. The founders were
not thinking about hunting when they wrote the second amendment. Their thoughts were focused upon the possibility of tyranny in a future where
government has gone dark.
One must wonder what the numbers are of innocent citizens murdered by evil people in the last hundred years and how they compare between the nations
which comprise the EU, and America. Even if your murder rate per capita is lower today, how do the totals compare over a century? It is not only about
self defense from crime, it is about the every generation or two incidents of mass murder by governments. If this were to happen again what would an
unarmed populace do? Oh yeah we know, just study 1935 to 1945.
Liberals refuse to look realistically at facts, refuse to learn from history. Facts like 20 to 30 people are shot virtually every weekend in Chicago.
In nearly all cases every weekend, every one of the shooters illegally in possession of a firearm. Phoenix is the number two kidnapping capital in the
world.
Crime is aided by liberal policies such as letting criminals off too easy and too soon allowing them back out to do it again. Stories in the news
abound if one only reads them.
I for one not only would not be such a victim, my actions would save down the road every single other soul doomed to be a victim if the criminal had
not been stopped the one time they chose to victimize me. Yet I know you would never look at the FBI statistics on crime in your cities, nor the
amount of guns fired defending the innocent. Ironically it is your liberal policies which have generated this rise in the crime rate. You libs just
love illegal immigrants. Yet FBI stats prove their being allowed here in ever increasing numbers drastically increases those stats. That in fact
virtually all of the kidnapping in Phoenix is done by illegals who are here illegally. No zts I will not bother giving links you would choose to
disbelieve anyway. If you really want truth search for it with an open mind. Truth such as murder rates, DC, Detroit, on and on cities ruled by
liberal policies which outlaw self defense having the very highest rates.
"If we just stopped letting the mentally ill own handguns... "
Are you implying here that I am mentally ill? Why else did you post this in response to my post? Do you think you are so intelligent a clever thinly
veiled despicable accusation against a member of SCM would go unnoticed?
Attacking 'to the man' in debate is sure sign of lack of standing for your position.
On another note this is one reason I like the fact the left hates guns. Who is it always stating 'liberalism is a mental disorder'?
"I assure you that while the U.S. is pretty screwed-up in general, it's not to the level he's claiming."
If you are going to state in your own words what you claim I said then quote my precise words. Otherwise all you do is quote your own version of what
you think I said. The US was at 10.3, less that most of the countries I listed. Far less than many. In 30 years in Phoenix I saw a lot of crime, I
knew many victims. I however was not one of them.
Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXCUIeC__9g
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | Are you implying here that I am mentally ill? Why else did you post this in response to my post? |
It's pretty obvious, to me at any rate, that he was simply referring to mentally ill people in general ─ why you'd arbitrarily assume he had you in
mind is quite beyond me?
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise | | Quote: | | Are you implying here that I am mentally ill? Why else did you post this in response to my post? |
It's pretty obvious, to me at any rate, that he was simply referring to mentally ill people in general ─ why you'd arbitrarily assume he had you in
mind is quite beyond me?
|
So you read minds now, or should you let people answer for themselves. He stated about me a comment related to my position which he said was in error
(not forgetting a statement itself in error - I never stated this I stated as long as a nonzero chance for being a victim exists I choose not to be
one, I never said it's the wild west here), the 'it's not to the level he's claiming', is directed at me. Followed by "If we just stopped letting the
mentally ill own handguns...". The ending dots themselves yet another statement. To anyone with the ability to reason that is. Grouping these together
with no other words justifying the position leads one to make the connection. Again, one with reading comprehension that is. One must consider how
their words will read online to strangers as well as what they are thinking at the time they wrote them. How they put them together, how they will be
perceived. He did not put this line following a new branching direction of conversation concerning who is responsible for gun crimes, as in the
mentally ill. He followed his comment about me with those words standing alone then left conclusions trailing as to meaning by the .... As if to say
'guess what I am really thinking/concluding'.
I see this as accusation directed at me. You can see it however you choose. He may have meant who knows what the way he posted it in the order he did.
In any case as I said one must look at their posts in light of how others who unlike you hissy cannot read minds may perceive them as well as what
they were thinking which only they* really know. *I assume you also from your implied mind reading abilities since you are answering for another what
their thoughts were when posting.
Number one while the premise may hold that a few mentally ill have done violence, the greatest majority were not mentally ill. How else do you justify
the prisons being more filled than institutions if this concept was all encompassing. More filled per capita in the US than any other nation.
By the way you are proving my words correct. "adamsium, trying to reason with liberals is pointless. I will prove it to you. Just wait and read the
replies which follow this post.".
Obvious from your focusing not upon the content of my post but rather what you thought was a point you could use to jump in and attack. A point very
minor to the post in it's entirety, and one you cannot know for certain (unless you are a mind reader). Typical liberal progressive tactics.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
The amount of hypocrisy here is unreal. IrC, You accuse other people of putting words in your mouth(and of trying to "read minds"), and here you are,
claiming I called you mentally ill(really?) and acting as though you know my entire political stance on firearms, etc. What I was telling hissingnoise
is to give the United States a chance, that not everyone in the country is so pervaded by paranoia that they are too scared and un-trusting to leave
the house without a sidearm. For the record, this kind of conversation shouldn't even be in this thread; it's completely unrelated. Those that have
never traveled far enough outside their geographical and mental comfort zone to experience the world and how it works will never gain a less
ridiculously biased worldview until that has happened, so I'm not going to entertain those people in an argument. That being said, I will point out,
IrC, that you're using your heaps of irrelevant statistics incorrectly; The figures you gave were firearm related deaths per hundred thousand people.
Greece having a smaller population than the United States has nothing to do with it; people are far less likely to be killed by a gun there than here.
Leaving the thread now.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4618
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC |
So you read minds now, or should you let people answer for themselves. He stated about me a comment related to my position which he said was in error
(not forgetting a statement itself in error - I never stated this I stated as long as a nonzero chance for being a victim exists I choose not to be
one, I never said it's the wild west here), the 'it's not to the level he's claiming', is directed at me. Followed by "If we just stopped letting the
mentally ill own handguns...". The ending dots themselves yet another statement. To anyone with the ability to reason that is. Grouping these together
with no other words justifying the position leads one to make the connection. Again, one with reading comprehension that is. One must consider how
their words will read online to strangers as well as what they are thinking at the time they wrote them. How they put them together, how they will be
perceived. He did not put this line following a new branching direction of conversation concerning who is responsible for gun crimes, as in the
mentally ill. He followed his comment about me with those words standing alone then left conclusions trailing as to meaning by the .... As if to say
'guess what I am really thinking/concluding'.
I see this as accusation directed at me. You can see it however you choose. He may have meant who knows what the way he posted it in the order he did.
In any case as I said one must look at their posts in light of how others who unlike you hissy cannot read minds may perceive them as well as what
they were thinking which only they* really know. *I assume you also from your implied mind reading abilities since you are answering for another what
their thoughts were when posting.
Number one while the premise may hold that a few mentally ill have done violence, the greatest majority were not mentally ill. How else do you justify
the prisons being more filled than institutions if this concept was all encompassing. More filled per capita in the US than any other nation.
By the way you are proving my words correct. "adamsium, trying to reason with liberals is pointless. I will prove it to you. Just wait and read the
replies which follow this post.".
Obvious from your focusing not upon the content of my post but rather what you thought was a point you could use to jump in and attack. A point very
minor to the post in it's entirety, and one you cannot know for certain (unless you are a mind reader). Typical liberal progressive tactics.
|
I think you are alone in seeing No Tears Only Dreams Now's response as an attack directed at you. When I
looked over the thread, I didn't see anything amiss there either, and was quite surprised to read your retaliation against it. In fact, from the way
you reacted to his post it actually makes it look more like you are the one making an ad hominem attack.
Also, the reason that our prisons are so full is because of all of the people who have gotten locked up for having weed, not because so many more sane
people are engaging in violent crime.
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There are many places on earth where individuals unauthorized to possess firearms are liable to be summarily shot
down by those who are authorized. I urge those who are troubled by Americans authorized to be armed to depart for said destinations and leave us
alone. Ours remains a free country , no need to make it less , simply go where you see greener grass. That this may change in the future is simmering
in the background , when it does come to a head you 'll wish you had gone.
.
|
|
|
adamsium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 180
Registered: 9-4-2012
Location: \ƚooɿ\
Member Is Offline
Mood: uprooting
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise | | Quote: | | . . . our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things, including anything that one might use to
defend themselves. |
OTOH, your paranoia might be more easily treated than accidental gunshot wounds! |
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | | adamsium, trying to reason with liberals is pointless. I will prove it to you. Just wait and read the replies which follow this post.
|
Yes, I've been learning that more and more lately. It seems that, whilst accidental gunshot wounds may be difficult to treat, treating the bleeding
heart of a liberal is a far greater challenge.
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Arguing with a liberal is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you realize that you aren't going to win and he's actually enjoying
himself where you are just covered in mud.
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hyfalcon | | Arguing with a liberal is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you realize that you aren't going to win and he's actually enjoying
himself where you are just covered in mud. |
This is very true(I can speak from the perspective of the pig here  )
This is why comedic political satire shows in the United States are mostly run by liberals(Daily Show, Colbert Report) while on the conservative talk
shows(Hannity, Bill O'Reilly's) the host often gets frustrated and starts yelling.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | he's actually enjoying himself where you are just covered in mud. |
And then, to add to the fun, your head explodes . . . lol
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise | | Quote: | | he's actually enjoying himself where you are just covered in mud. |
And then, to add to the fun, your head explodes . . . lol
|
I've seen the shoe on the other foot also. Especially from the likes of PETA.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
The main problem with Guns and such as that they are Seen as 'overwhelming force', even by Crowds.
I find it fascinating that we have an instinctive crowd behaviour to things like 'Go This Way' and not a reaction like 'Kill that one who might kill
us all'.
Personally, crowds are a thing to be avoided for precisely that reason.
Sure, the Armed attacker would kill maybe 6 of an unarmed crowd if lucky, but the Crowd would then make Mincemeat of him, utterly.
I often consider this conumdrum on Airplanes.
Would anyone else get up and attack a hijacker, whether they recognised the threat or not ?
Unlikely, yet they would shove and jostle to get off the plane quicker.
Perhaps with a few more thousand years of evolution.
|
|
|
TheAlchemistPirate
Hazard to Others
Posts: 151
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: The point of no return
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enigmatic
|
|
Makes the term "sheeple" take on a even deeper meaning.
"Is this even science anymore?!"
|
|
|
HeYBrO
Hazard to Others
Posts: 289
Registered: 6-12-2013
Location: 'straya
Member Is Offline
Mood: 
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by adamsium | | Quote: Originally posted by Oscilllator | Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent
it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence. |
Everybody here in Australia thinks it's nuts?
Some of us here in Australia think it's nuts that our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things,
including anything that one might use to defend themselves. 'Nanny state' is becoming an understatement when it comes to Australia.
|
Yes, Everybody. How did this thread get onto gun control anyway?
|
|
|
adamsium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 180
Registered: 9-4-2012
Location: \ƚooɿ\
Member Is Offline
Mood: uprooting
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by HeYBrO | | Quote: Originally posted by adamsium | | Quote: Originally posted by Oscilllator | Well I just thought I'd put this out there: Everybody in Australia thinks it absolutely nuts you guys can walk around carrying guns.
From an outsiders perspective it seems obvious that less guns = less shooting, but I can understand that in a society where guns are already prevalent
it may seem like a good idea to carry a gun yourself, even if only for self-defence. |
Everybody here in Australia thinks it's nuts?
Some of us here in Australia think it's nuts that our ridiculously bloated government likes to deal with just about every 'problem' by banning things,
including anything that one might use to defend themselves. 'Nanny state' is becoming an understatement when it comes to Australia.
|
Yes, Everybody. How did this thread get onto gun control anyway? |
No, not everybody.
That much should be obvious.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
