School Shooting in Connecticut

  On 12/18/2012 at 9:16 PM, tauboo said:

yeah and i'm disagreeing

 

edit: to compson.. also, i'm not taking your point out of context

 

so guns would have never been existed because no one ever needs to be able to provide food (get stranded out in the wild) or defend themselves from a bear or cougar or something? I'm pretty sure someone a hundred years ago would have thought about it and said, "hey, ya know we keep hearing about these people who get mauled by bears on family outings or people who are lost in the wild and die of starvation, we should invent a tool that anyone can use incase they are in that kind of situation! brilliant! we will make a lot of money on this idea."

 

the desire to have guns is more a desire to protect your family and sport than it is for killing other people. sure you can learn how to catch a fucking deer... but why when you can sit on your ass and shoot it from a few hundred feet away? ducks too... catching birds seems like it would be a pain in the ass. So for people who do live in the middle of nowhere and might be snowed in or whatever, a gun provides them a more effective way of getting food.

Edited December 18, 2012 by compson

  On 12/18/2012 at 9:15 PM, Iain C said:

But I've been over this like, a million times on watmm. You've noticed that I don't actually care about having a "rational debate" or whatever (another liberal fetish). Very observant. Because what's the point? Nobody changes anybody's minds here - but if I find your views offensive then sure I'll rant here and let off some steam. You're doing exactly the same.

 

Anyway - I'm going to stop shitting up this thread now.

 

Wait, you're acidphakist? Ha. It's been a while. I legitimately hope you're well, and that's not sarcasm.

 

i sincerely hope that's not true. ive certainly personally benefited from debate with other different minded people.

not since i visited the last Drudgereport.com linked article comment thread have i seen so many valiant attempts to turn the word liberal into a pejorative, classy stuff

yeah lol

  compson said:

  tauboo said:

yeah and i'm disagreeing

 

edit: to compson.. also, i'm not taking your point out of context

so guns would have never been existed because no one ever needs to be able to provide food (get stranded out in the wild) or defend themselves from a bear or cougar or something? I'm pretty sure someone a hundred years ago would have thought about it and said, "hey, ya know we keep hearing about these people who get mauled by bears on family outings or people who are lost in the wild and die of starvation, we should invent a tool that anyone can use incase they are in that kind of situation! brilliant! we will make a lot of money on this idea."

 

the desire to have guns is more a desire to protect your family and sport than it is for killing other people. sure you can learn how to catch a fucking deer... but why when you can sit on your ass and shoot it from a few hundred feet away? ducks too... catching birds seems like it would be a pain in the ass. So for people who do live in the middle of nowhere and might be snowed in or whatever, a gun provides them a more effective way of getting food.

 

 

 

 

 

 

who would try to make money off uncivilized/poor folk? let 'em freeze. although i guess in a world where guns aren't invented for killing people, everyone might be really empathetic and care about those people.. so who knows

 

war is a slightly more important part of societal and industrial progress than bears and cougars threat, dude

Edited December 18, 2012 by tauboo

  On 12/18/2012 at 9:10 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 9:03 PM, tauboo said:

  compson said:

  sweepstakes said:

 

  compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

 

 

 

pro tip: capture and breed. have you heard of fences and gates? you really don't need guns to kill and eat animals. humans are intelligent enough to be able capture n breed any animal (zoos y0).

 

if you live alone in a shack in the american wild then maybe consider owning a gun. if you're anywhere near civilisation (especially urban and suburban ffs), no guns please...

 

knives however, are very fucking necessary for many purposes lol wtf

 

my comment was in reference to the point of the creation of guns... it does serve a more effective way of hunting animals therefore it would have been invented regardless of human violence purposes for people to go out and shoot animals. Plus it is fun to shoot guns. I have shot shotguns at those flying discs before and if you play video games at all, its kind of like that but different/more intense.

 

about 4-5 people have taken my post out of context because I was responding to someone who said guns were invented for the sole purpose of murdering humans. I simply don't think thats true. Same can be said about the knife. It was invented to murder animals, so humans could survive. It since has been adopted to make eating more classy. Guns have been on a similar trajectory as violence is down and most people have guns to shoot at targets and for self protection.

 

sorry but i think you took things out of context...

 

randy sicko said specifically "guns were not designed for killing"... i (amongst others) explained how they were. they were originally derived from cannons, etc. see earlier post... but have since been adopted for shooting cardboard targets, clay discs and animals.

 

the knife evolved from small sharpened stones used for cutting animal hides not for actually killing the animals. cutting tool became knife became sword. there is no similarity to the evolutionary process of the gun but what they have in common is they're both hand held killing devices. sword and gun that is.

 

this thread's embarassing. apologies for any part i had in that... although it was already a mess before i got here.

 

for me the question to ask any pro-gun folk is... can you truly live in peace knowing that the majority of your neighbours are armed?

Edited December 18, 2012 by keltoi

ITT: jaded misanthropic cynics

  On 12/18/2012 at 10:07 PM, keltoi said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 9:10 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 9:03 PM, tauboo said:

  compson said:

  sweepstakes said:

 

  compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

 

 

 

pro tip: capture and breed. have you heard of fences and gates? you really don't need guns to kill and eat animals. humans are intelligent enough to be able capture n breed any animal (zoos y0).

 

if you live alone in a shack in the american wild then maybe consider owning a gun. if you're anywhere near civilisation (especially urban and suburban ffs), no guns please...

 

knives however, are very fucking necessary for many purposes lol wtf

 

my comment was in reference to the point of the creation of guns... it does serve a more effective way of hunting animals therefore it would have been invented regardless of human violence purposes for people to go out and shoot animals. Plus it is fun to shoot guns. I have shot shotguns at those flying discs before and if you play video games at all, its kind of like that but different/more intense.

 

about 4-5 people have taken my post out of context because I was responding to someone who said guns were invented for the sole purpose of murdering humans. I simply don't think thats true. Same can be said about the knife. It was invented to murder animals, so humans could survive. It since has been adopted to make eating more classy. Guns have been on a similar trajectory as violence is down and most people have guns to shoot at targets and for self protection.

 

sorry but i think you took things out of context...

 

randy sicko said specifically "guns were not designed for killing people"... i (amongst others) explained how they were. they were originally derived from cannons, etc. see earlier post... but have since been adopted for shooting cardboard targets, clay discs and animals.

 

the knife evolved from small sharpened stones used for cutting animal hides not for actually killing the animals. cutting tool became knife became sword. there is no similarity to the evolution of the gun.

 

this thread's embarassing. apologies for any part i had in that... although it was already a mess before i got here.

 

for me the question to ask any pro-gun folk is... can you truly live in peace knowing that the majority of your neighbours are armed?

 

they were certainly designed for killing people as well... but had they not been designed out of that purpose (ie some kind of utopian human race of no violence towards each other) they still would have been designed for hunting animals and protection from animals. so they would exist no matter what as its simply evolutionary technology... basically I find the notion that simply having a gun or firing them is "evil" a generalization, that's all I was commenting on. I agree with your general point of view

  Iain C said:

Let me be as clear as I can. Liberalism = 'nice,' reformist capitalism. Actually that's NOT the traditional definition, bit that's how it's used today, especially in the US.

fair enough. you're a communist/anarchist- or at least you claim to be (we'd see if you'd still feel the same way after you got a taste of living in an country with total anarchy. all my money would be on you crying constantly, along with all the other supposed anarchists).

  Iain C said:

Liberals often mean well but they're totally misguided. They'll call for gun control in the US while cheering on or at the very least tolerating Obama's murderous foreign wars.

ah yes. the ole' "war is bad" but "i want to see all of my ideological enemies dead" thing. pretty common. do i need to spell out why it makes you a hypocritical asshole? if you were in a position of absolute power over a country/empire of significant might, you would be exactly the kind of guy who would take that country to war. weren't the crusades about ideology? either that or you would be one of the guys who conducts mass genocide on his own people.

  Iain C said:

Wait, you're acidphakist? Ha. It's been a while. I legitimately hope you're well, and that's not sarcasm.

no. i'm just a guy who hasn't allowed tv/entertainment media, group think, my teachers, or even the ideas of the political group i find myself agreeing with most often, to completely form every single one of 'my' opinions.

  On 12/18/2012 at 10:18 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 10:07 PM, keltoi said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 9:10 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 9:03 PM, tauboo said:

  compson said:

  sweepstakes said:

 

  compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

 

 

 

pro tip: capture and breed. have you heard of fences and gates? you really don't need guns to kill and eat animals. humans are intelligent enough to be able capture n breed any animal (zoos y0).

 

if you live alone in a shack in the american wild then maybe consider owning a gun. if you're anywhere near civilisation (especially urban and suburban ffs), no guns please...

 

knives however, are very fucking necessary for many purposes lol wtf

 

my comment was in reference to the point of the creation of guns... it does serve a more effective way of hunting animals therefore it would have been invented regardless of human violence purposes for people to go out and shoot animals. Plus it is fun to shoot guns. I have shot shotguns at those flying discs before and if you play video games at all, its kind of like that but different/more intense.

 

about 4-5 people have taken my post out of context because I was responding to someone who said guns were invented for the sole purpose of murdering humans. I simply don't think thats true. Same can be said about the knife. It was invented to murder animals, so humans could survive. It since has been adopted to make eating more classy. Guns have been on a similar trajectory as violence is down and most people have guns to shoot at targets and for self protection.

 

sorry but i think you took things out of context...

 

randy sicko said specifically "guns were not designed for killing people"... i (amongst others) explained how they were. they were originally derived from cannons, etc. see earlier post... but have since been adopted for shooting cardboard targets, clay discs and animals.

 

the knife evolved from small sharpened stones used for cutting animal hides not for actually killing the animals. cutting tool became knife became sword. there is no similarity to the evolution of the gun.

 

this thread's embarassing. apologies for any part i had in that... although it was already a mess before i got here.

 

for me the question to ask any pro-gun folk is... can you truly live in peace knowing that the majority of your neighbours are armed?

 

they were certainly designed for killing people as well... but had they not been designed out of that purpose (ie some kind of utopian human race of no violence towards each other) they still would have been designed for hunting animals and protection from animals. so they would exist no matter what as its simply evolutionary technology... basically I find the notion that simply having a gun or firing them is "evil" a generalization, that's all I was commenting on. I agree with your general point of view

 

ok i didn't realise or catch the part where anyone said simply having/firing a gun is evil. i agree that's a generalisation but in your utopian dream guns are still designed for killing (animals). humans are animals.

 

No one outright said it, but it seems like it was implied. My mistake if not. I already said it would be better if guns didn't exist, but I find that kind of idea a bit ridiculous of a concept as evolution of technology is simply natural order... double edged sword and all that. Hell could it not be argued the creation of the nuke has saved more lives than killed? WW3 would be more likely in a no nuke world, but now going to war at that scale = total destruction of earth, so we don't.

ok i'll bow out of this thread and stop crapping it up myself. you guys can continue with the 'guns are for killing people' 'no they aren't' and 'guns are evil, their owners are f'ing crazy psychos' 'who ever said guns/gun owners are evil?' thing. i actually agree with lain C, in this case, that nobody is going to change anyone else's mind on this issue.

Yeah, it's been a long time since a single event has so profoundly stoked my misanthropy. Humans really are a bunch of dumb fucking cunts on the whole.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/18/gun-sales-surge-newtown-crackdown

 

 

Gun sales surge across US after Newtown amid fears of crackdown

From Oregon to Connecticut, gun shops reported soaring sales over the weekend as national attention returns to gun control

 

 

 

 

    Quote

Karl Durkheimer is more coy than might be expected of a man with a pistol on his hip.

 

Durkheimer's gun shop looks to have enjoyed record sales of semi-automatics – "modern sporting rifles", as he calls them – and handguns at the weekend. But he doesn't want to talk specific numbers.

 

Nor is he terribly keen to speculate on the causes of the sudden demand. But he acknowledges that it probably has everything to do with a man killing two people with an assault rifle last week in a Portland shopping mall less than 10 minutes drive away, and Friday's massacre of 20 small children and seven adults on the other side of the country in Connecticut.

 

"Handgun sales are up substantially and modern sporting rifles are up astronomically," he said after a few days when his shop, Northwest Armory, was packed with buyers sizing up the most popular pistol in the US, the Glock, and the military-style AR-15 assault rifle, which also comes with a pink stock for women. "The people you see are twofold. There are first-time buyers who are in fear of what the future will bring. But most of what you saw is people hedging their bets that there might be a political policy put forward by the liberal side of the government."

i think you'd struggle to argue that creation of nukes has saved lives. the nukes that've already been launched to this point in time have killed people, no question... and the nukes that haven't been launched yet will probably kill people eventually...

 

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

  On 12/18/2012 at 10:52 PM, MisterE said:

ok i'll bow out of this thread and stop crapping it up myself. you guys can continue with the 'guns are for killing people' 'no they aren't' and 'guns are evil, their owners are f'ing crazy psychos' 'who ever said guns/gun owners are evil?' thing. i actually agree with lain C, in this case, that nobody is going to change anyone else's mind on this issue.

 

multiple lines of conversation can/do happen on internets.

 

you're little to and fro shitsling with iaian was more relevant somehow?

Edited December 19, 2012 by keltoi

anyone else feel like this thread either belongs on the FreeRepublic forums or at the bottom of a Keith Olbermann youtube clip?

what are those things?

  On 12/18/2012 at 11:08 PM, keltoi said:

i think you'd struggle to argue that creation of nukes has saved lives. the nukes that've already been launched to this point in time have killed people, no question... and the nukes that haven't been launched yet will probably kill people eventually...

 

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

 

what nukes that haven't yet been launched? that's my point, if you launch a nuke now, your country will be annihilated, so it doesn't happen + this is the most peaceful time in human history

  On 12/18/2012 at 11:26 PM, compson said:

this is the most peaceful time in human history

 

 

iain c is the man

  On 12/18/2012 at 11:31 PM, RichieBees said:

iain c is the man

 

he must be really conflicted about that

 

 

 

I can't believe I just posted in this thread

The existence of this thread was inevitable, as unpleasant as it's become. If Vamos Scorcho hadn't started it, another WATMM member would have.

 

I think a valuable piece of insight though would be from someone who's been in the situation of a mass shooting, or has had a friend or family member fall victim to one. Otherwise, all we're getting is our opinions clashing in a perpetual Uroboros fashion, without the experience of having been in this kind of life-threatening situation.

Misanthropy: the ugly side of idmz, vol. 1

  On 12/18/2012 at 11:31 PM, RichieBees said:

iain c is the man

iain c is the man fuck mrE and randysicko :D

  On 12/18/2012 at 11:26 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 11:08 PM, keltoi said:

i think you'd struggle to argue that creation of nukes has saved lives. the nukes that've already been launched to this point in time have killed people, no question... and the nukes that haven't been launched yet will probably kill people eventually...

 

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

 

what nukes that haven't yet been launched? that's my point, if you launch a nuke now, your country will be annihilated, so it doesn't happen + this is the most peaceful time in human history

 

ok so we know they exist but none are launched due to the threat of annihilation from super powers dictating 'ours are bigger than yours' or 'we can have them but you can't'... this is not peace.

 

brings me back to what i said earlier... can you truly live in peace knowing that the majority of your neighbours are armed?