nitrodann

Only on a yank forum.

Dann

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

+1 Freud called it our "Thanatos", or "death drive". Pretty ******* badass.

Back on topic, I currently own no guns , however my dad had a S&W .357 nickel (plated?) revolver. I want: a Beretta 92fs, SIG 229 in .40 S&W or .357 SIG caliber, a 1911, some sort of AR-15/M16 rifle or maybe an AK or SKS, and a Mossberg 500.

Reverant

iTrader: (10)

Freud needs to learn greek. Thanatos literally means death. Not death drive or anything else.

Pen2_the_penguin

iTrader: (4)

stfu and gtfo you god damned fly eating koala humper, if you have nothing to contribute but a retarded spamming noob boob comment that has no value to anything out of ******* no where that is NOT the random thread, then just simply back out of thread for the love of all things that is cat.
-with love


On the other hand, yes we <3 guns as much as russians like... well... guns.


I have my reason for my weapons, I like to pelunk with the .22, and defend the homestead with the .40s&w, my girl has a cute little .380 beretta with a CCW in her purse.

nitrodann

Nah man Im just stirring you guys, anything americans are stereotyped for (ie guns) is really easy to stir you about. Considering my no swear words or name calling 5 word post managed an aggressive 30 odd word response I think that proves it.
Relax, I live in the city now but used to have a 222, and a remington pump action.

Cheers,
'Koala humper'

Blaize

1. I can't spell. Blame my U.S. Education.

2. I wouldn't dream of changing the 2nd amendment. It's too late now anyway. All it would do is drive up prices. I can see the argument against 20+ round clips, but it's a losing battle really.

In fact I used to be the same as you, freedom and gun ownership go hand in hand ect. I am entering this debate now with a different outlook. I am today flying back to England after a three week tour of the southern US visiting family after 4 years living out of the country. It changes your perspective seeing how much more civilised life is when everyone does not have the option to kill you at any moment. looking at it as sort of an outsider now it all seems a bit childish and alot of chest thumping (not you personally).

But more power too you, I get it. Machine guns are cool. Owning them is fun. It's just long debates about what bullet will inflict the most damage to flesh that comes off a bit mental.

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Responsible gun owners don't change the "can be killed at any time" dynamic. They are the last person you should be worried about. Your chances of being hit by a car are insanely higher than being shot... and that person who shot you... 99.99% of the time is NOT a legitimate gun owner.

Larger magazines to me just mean I have to reload less at the range. Nothing more. I enjoy shooting at targets, its a challenge and a skill to do well.

It's really more of an issue about the wrong people getting their hands on guns and the gun owners who don't take the responsibility serious. That is just an unfortunate problem that plagues the World.

Blaize

It seems we are both arguing the same side of the debate. I agree if you want to own people killing machines as a hobby, and are responsible in using them they are no more dangerous than chainsaws and nail guns. Its the others as they always say that are the problem.

Having now lived in a very restrictive society regarding gun ownership I think I prefer it. In the 4 years I have lived in England I have only heard about maybe a dozen shootings. In the two weeks I have spent here in New Orleans there have been that many.

It's therefore, to me, a better system in England as it just doesn't happen. On the other hand I am not a gun enthusiast, so it doesnt take anything away for me not to have one. And I will freely admit that the baseball bat I keep under the bed doesn't make me feel nearly as secure as the beretta did.

I hear in Switzerland, it is just about impossible to legally modify a car for road use. Any part you replace HAS to be an original factory part. That I could not deal with, while others would not be the least bit upset. (point of fact, my wife would w over the moon)

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

The risks and dangers inherent in a free society are just more apparent -- restricting freedoms doesn't reduce the risk and danger, it just shifts it to less obvious arenas.

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Blaize

Well in this case it does. There are near enough no guns where I live. So the chances of me getting shot are about nil. Simple as that.

I would much rather have it out with an armed attacker wielding a knife. Added bonus here is that the English, as a rule, are pretty short people. So at over six foot I actually have the upper hand in a physical fight before it even starts.

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Which means someone like myself, who is 5'7" and under 150lbs... gets attacked by someone like you... I die. IF I was allowed a concealed carry, I wouldn't. You'd never know I had one... and would NEVER EVER be at risk... unless you decided to become a big bad guy and attack myself or my wife.

<-- does not carry, lives in a state that doesn't allow it (one of the last) And not sure I'm ready to do so if provided the opportunity.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

The argument could go both ways. No guns means no one using guns in crime. No guns also means no way to defend ones self from an attacker (armed or not). Guns means more guns used in crimes, means more crimes become deadly. Guns means I can defend myself/family/home from an attacker.

I own a gun, it stays in a safe place where I can access it in quickly.

Blaize

Fair point. But there is a big difference between killing someone with your hands and doing it with a gun. When people get mugged in England they usually fight back, not really an option when a gun is pointed at you (even if you have one in your pocket). And they just about never die.

The giffords thing is a prime example. If he had a knife or a bat I am pretty sure he would not have got so far.

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

If he had driven a car into them, more would have though. He had other lethal options, he choose one.

You can't stop crazy people from killing people. Sad truth.

Blaize

Completely true, but you see my point.

In any case, I am not really an anti gun guy. It's just the debates about what bullets do the most damage to flesh that always come off a bit strange to me. But even then, I suppose it is a conversation that has to be had.

lordrigamus

iTrader: (14)

It's not that strange, really. It's all about shock value. You could shoot someone with a .22 caliber 10 times and they might keep coming at you if you don't hit anything vital. On the other hand if you shoot someone with a.45 caliber that expands 2/3 it's size, creates a massive hydraulic wound channel and massive trauma to the system, it has a better chance of stopping an attacker sooner.

The more damage you can create with the first round, the better chance you have of stopping an attacker before they can accomplish their intentions.

Faeflora

iTrader: (2)

Shock. And awe.

That's why I just drop trou when I get in a tight spot.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I am friends with an English couple that live here in central Florida now because England had grown so violently dangerous in the last ten years. Home invasions and armed robberies were commonplace there because the criminals knew the good people were defenseless. It is a shame the government took all of the self defense weapons away from the good people and left the criminals armed. But what has government ever done right? And comparing the shi thole of New Orleans to any reasonable part of the country is more than a little ridiculous. Shitty parts of jolly old England are just as dangerous as Nawlins.

And yes, you can't modify your car in Switzerland. A friend visited a few weeks ago from Switzerland and they went to a vintage car cruise because he was nostalgic about cars they weren't allowed to have.

pusha

iTrader: (5)

These threads are always retarded.