The "anything" thread
- Thread starter C_Gibby
- Start date
I've grown up around firearms all my life. From military grade assault rifles (I own one personally), to shotguns, to pistols, and to revolvers, I've shot and seen a lot of them. I am 19 and have been exposed to them since I was in elementary school. I have had shooter safety drilled into my head since then. I am extremely comfortable around weapons, and people packing weapons. Just today at the retail store I work at I was helping a man load a firearm safe into his truck and when he bent over, his shirt lifted to reveal a revolver. I was more inclined to say, "Nice revolver, what caliber is it?" than to get alarmed and wonder why this man thinks he needs a revolver strapped to his hip.
I guess I can sort of understand European fear of guns since they have extremely liberal weapon laws, but here in Maine, most anything goes, and that's what people are used to. Sure the law says you can open-carry anything you want as long as you do not step foot on federal property or school campuses (elementary all the way to college) and won't test over .000 blood alcohol. However, people don't walk around with M4s and AKs around their shoulder. They will have the police called on them, and it has happened a few times. When the police get there though, everyone starts joking around laughing, and they just tell the man not to bring it in next time as to avoid a scene. The only time it is commonplace to see rifles open-carried is at gun shows.
People do open-carry pistols in Maine liberally, however, and that is something I am all for. In this state, I read of more deaths from accidental shootings in the newspaper such as disassembly or aiming in the wrong direction than a pissed off dude that just had is car rear-ended so he's going to take some revenge with some hot led.
I guess I can sort of understand European fear of guns since they have extremely liberal weapon laws, but here in Maine, most anything goes, and that's what people are used to. Sure the law says you can open-carry anything you want as long as you do not step foot on federal property or school campuses (elementary all the way to college) and won't test over .000 blood alcohol. However, people don't walk around with M4s and AKs around their shoulder. They will have the police called on them, and it has happened a few times. When the police get there though, everyone starts joking around laughing, and they just tell the man not to bring it in next time as to avoid a scene. The only time it is commonplace to see rifles open-carried is at gun shows.
People do open-carry pistols in Maine liberally, however, and that is something I am all for. In this state, I read of more deaths from accidental shootings in the newspaper such as disassembly or aiming in the wrong direction than a pissed off dude that just had is car rear-ended so he's going to take some revenge with some hot led.
Upvote
0
![[-project.rattus-]](/data/avatars/s/0/161.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
You might want to consult a dictionary on the term "liberal". Europe, in general has rather restrictive gun laws. And the scepticism towards guns has several reasons, at least in my opinion:
1) Guns are designed to kill. They have no other use. So by buying a gun you sort of indirectly state that you're up to kill people. Which leads us to reason...
2) A person's live, no matter what crime he or she committed or is just committing, is worth more than property. Live is regarded as the highest commodity, thus there is no death penalty. "Noone deservers to die" is one of the laws main doctrines, even if sometimes mob mentality begs to differ.
Also, criminals in general are not regarded as "evil" (because, actually no one is, not even Ostmann), but as being able to rehabilitate and lead a normal law abiding life.
3) Many countries still draft people into military for a certain amount of time. So most male people get a first hand view how the military really is. And it's not glorious. It's an annoying duty. And people who don't think that way are generally regarded as people best not be let too close to things that can kill other people.
4) Wars. Europe's very diverse. Thus, many conflicts have arisen in the past and still arise. While western europe is relatively stable and has not had a war since WW2, there was a real war in my lifetime with battles (allbeit small ones) being fought less than 50 kilometers from where I live. Also, being the eastern most "western european" country and living in a one day biking trip from the iron curtain wasn't really fun times during the cold war.
Thus weapons and militarism are both not regarded as positive, but as very negative. They only bring pain, suffering and death.
Which in turns brings us to the last point: Escalation of violence. Europe, in a process of thousands of years of armed conflicts, has learned that fear and violence escalates proportinal to the means of doing damage. A simple example:
A person wants to rob you at gunpoint. Thus he ambushes you in an alley. He has got the advantage of already pointing the gun at you when you realise what happens. In Europe he'd be relatively relaxed, because he wouldn't fear for his own life. Thus, you'd toss him your wallet and cellphone, he buggers off, you live to tell the tale, call the police and inform the bank.
Now you'd carry a gun, either openly or worse, concealed, the assailant is much more nervous and much more likely to shoot you down to gain things that are replaceable. Unlike your or his life.
So, by the general american gun nut's view of the world, western europe should already be in a state of anarchy where illegally armed gangs rule. But it isn't. where I live, people getting shot at, not killed or even hit, but merely shot at, are making nationwide headlines because it's so uncommon. Heck, two guys shooting bb-guns at random people made nationwide headlines.
Floyd said:
Now Floyd, I do hope you used hyperbole to point out the inherent hypocrisy of being against one thing that kills while tolerating another.
Nevertheless, I have to point out something:
Prohibition never works. History, and current day drug politics for that matter, clearly show that prohibiting something doesn't prevent it. The key difference between alcohol, and more specifically DUI and weapons is the intent. People don't drink and drive with the intent to kill, while people carrying guns do carry them with the intent to use them, and people carrying weapons for personal defense do intend to use them on people.
Thus I think it's justified that different measures are applied, even though accidents are tragic and cannot ever truly be prevented.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If you are content to rely on the good will of an assailant to save you, you have far more faith in humanity than I ever will.
Upvote
0
It has nothing to do with good will. In fact, I don't think that a robber as any "good will" towards you when he's actualy robbing you.
It has to do with people tending to go the way of least resistance or risk. If he robs you, he wants money. Actually shooting you would not further his goals. In fact, it would be counterproductive, as it would draw much more attention and police pursuit.
But if he feels there's a very real threat to his own wellbeing, he'll do anything to prevent harm coming to himself. Including killing the obstacle between him and the money he wants.
Actually I wonder if there are statistics on how many actual crimes have been prevented by people carrying guns.
Upvote
0
So what about say hunters who earn money by shooting say wild game with their shotguns or so? Pretty much anyform of gun nut or enthustiastic I know (personally) are are ****ing disgusted and disdained by poor handling of firearms over the XXXXL Mr. Gun-Expert who waves it around like crazy in any firing range, public space etc while they're loaded. One of them has fired at live rounds at another human being, but then again he was in FRDF abroad. I presume the others are simply ticking timebombs waiting to explode.
Besides we could ask the same question, how many objects are designed to make something easier but would also excel at killing, skinning, gutting etc? Scythe (as impractical as it might be) ? Knives? Axes? Spears? Bows? Sure spears and bows have little value in these days but how many tools humans have designed with the clear intension to kill prey of some sorts, regardless is it their own kind?
How often this rarely holds up in practice? You could go on a real killing spree with any kind of potential weapon and just murder plenty of people, then if you get caught 1. you get off more easily - besides the social stigma and reputation - because any kind of monetary compensation is far, far, far lower than it would be if you would commit a fraud, and 2. even then how often there's the cop-out that "omg he must be insane we, quick get the psychologist here to test him so we can just isolated him and he can avoid any real trial!" just because of almost dogmatic thought that anyone who commits such things must be insane and cannot be held morally responsible. Arguably it's part of the "No-one deserves to die" part, but honestly how often it's just obfuscated by any kind of stupid excuse that the person needs help, even in cases where it was perfectly obvious the person was, in fact, acting perfectly under his own understanding what he or she was doing?
Sure there's more into it than that, but if such offences are repeated it begs the question: If a person does not follow and respect the law and rights of others at all, what obligation society has to protect such individual? Freedom and power (not in political sense here, mind you) ought to bring responsibility, and if such responsibility is left only to the courtroom to decide what is the point of any precious, overhyped human rights among some other things? Law is supposed to be fair for everyone, but since money talks - and as random example a study has pointed that judges who have eaten before the decision tend to be far more "forgiving" than judges whom have not eaten before, among some other things - things can get rather complicated.
I am perfectly aware some of those examples are pretty extreme and oversimplified, but even if we take media sensation out of it how often you run into something that violates any kind of common sense about law, or that life is supposed to be precious when you consider results of a trial?
Upvote
0
So much bull****. Especcially someone like you from Finland, where they have a school massacre every year just for fun, should stfu to be honest. Don't these events teach you anything?
Upvote
0
I might have worded that too strongly as I was shortening an even lengthier paragraph. Of course not all guns are bought to kill people. Home defense weapons are though, even if it's "justified" as it is self defense.
And guns are tools to kill. They have no other use. As are all other weapons. And what purpose do they have in a modern society? None at all. We don't have to hunt to survive.
It's the obligation of of society to protect everyone, even those who chose to or are forced to break the common rules. What happens when a society stops caring for everyone, but to actively weeds out people who are distinct from it can be read in history books.
Also, what would be the alternative?
Upvote
0
True, we don't have to, but it is simply profession among some other professions, as obsolescent as it might be. Unfortunately it is also a problem that practical disarmament of arms would not work, as much as prohibition would never work. Or most total bans altogether.
(And by the way, I didn't take any personal offence from that "have a gun, intension to kill" example
)That is definitely interesting problem, for which I cannot provide an answer without starting to sound very questionable, even if it's purely on hypothetical level. Especially since I probably presented it in bit extreme manner, which would only apply to truly egregious cases if you start to account how often something like that happens vs (mostly) harmless crimes, where the system does its job if account it as a whole, and not just specific incidents.
Upvote
0
And it wasn't my intention to offend (only maybe troll ostmann a little).
The problems of society are manyfold and comlex, and I think we cannot really solve them in here. But thanks for the civilzed discussion.
The problems of society are manyfold and comlex, and I think we cannot really solve them in here. But thanks for the civilzed discussion.
Upvote
0
Wait, what? Me, my family and many of my friends have guns. To the best of my knowledge we are not out to kill people. We use them for hunting and target practice, shooting clay birds etc...
Not that I keep my guns loaded or that I bought them to protect my family (see response above), but if someone came into my house to do me or my family harm such as rape or murder, you can bet if I had a chance to turn the tables by shooting their sorry @sses I would.
Here is an example: you have laws in your state that allow people to carry weapons either openly or concealed. Criminals are less likely to rob you because they can plainly see you are packing heat and they are worried about getting shot.
(See Mr Moyako's example above about the violence in his country yet they have restrictive gun laws) And to be honest, where do you get your logic? I have never heard any person here in the states in discussions about gun laws, other than yourself, put forward their view that Western Europe should be in anarchy.
Where I live in my part of NJ, murders are extremely rare here. Perhaps that is because a larger portion of the population owns firearms in my conservative area of the state... From what I can recall, one of the last murders, the last murder maybe, was done with a knife. It was done by a known illegal immigrant, who by definition was here illegally but the local police are forbidden to do anything about. Doesn't help the poor woman he murdered that he didn't have a gun...
* notice I stressed 'illegal' when I am talking about immigrants. If you are here legally in my country in any shape or form... Welcome!!! I mention that because I am sick to death of many of the liberals here who try to misinform the public that if a conservative person like myself is against illegal immigrants, then they are against all immigrants and thus a racist.
Upvote
0
No point arguing with them rednecks
Seriously though, there is absolutely no point to this discussion.
Upvote
0
So last night was pretty ****ed up. So funny how far money can get you. But also kinda sad.
Upvote
0
Just the usual, VIP with 6589 bottles and 868869 model *****es that basically are nice yet still are stupid *****es who in the end just **** with whoever has the most money. Also at some point I was so drunk that I took a staff elevator and then was at some toilet with 15-20 people where 2 simply snuffed some coke right in the open and one girl went into the toilet with 2 guys = wtf. Then I wanted to get back to our table and took the elevator up and suddenly I was on some out of bounds elevator lol. #
But yeah one ****ed up night ow and then is ok, you just must not overdo it and concentrate on real life instead, work out and study ****.
Upvote
0
True, we don't have to, but it is simply profession among some other professions, as obsolescent as it might be. Unfortunately it is also a problem that practical disarmament of arms would not work, as much as prohibition would never work. Or most total bans altogether.
(And by the way, I didn't take any personal offence from that "have a gun, intension to kill" example
That is definitely interesting problem, for which I cannot provide an answer without starting to sound very questionable, even if it's purely on hypothetical level. Especially since I probably presented it in bit extreme manner, which would only apply to truly egregious cases if you start to account how often something like that happens vs (mostly) harmless crimes, where the system does its job if account it as a whole, and not just specific incidents.
Hunting is not a profession anymore. Guns should be banned alltogether.
Its silly to even discuss about it.
Upvote
0
