TornadoADV: unwanted opinion that has been soundly defeated
I must have missed that part, where was it?
I'm not sure what opinion he's talking about....that mental people shouldn't have guns? That shooting someone just doing their job is a bit crazy, and downright counter-productive to your cause? These were "soundly defeated"? I think I'm done with the internet for tonight.
TornadoADV: Jesus, you people are lazy, come in, give your unwanted opinion that has been soundly defeated for going on 10 pages and then act all indignant when you get called out on the carpet. Typical internet filth behaviour.
Seriously? "You people are lazy"? "Unwanted opinion"? "Soundly defeated"? "Internet filth behavior"?
YOU are all that is wrong with the internet. If you can't see why, then please get a sense of perspective and self-awareness, then come back.
Why not just turn my back on them and ridicule them from afar?
Let them build their socialist Utopia and - inevitably - fail, like everyone before them. I really want no part in this.
"And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them..."
Any way you could embody these words more?
Sure.
Do you really believe Obama thought up those lines himself? Or was it rather Frank Marshall Davis CPUSA #47544, 'anti-colonialist' Barack Obama, Sr. or maybe Saul Alinsky ('Rules for Radicals')? Or, hey, why deviate? Maybe it was, once again, the Weather Underground's own Bill Ayers?
Your dream is your dream. You're absolutely entitled to have it.
If it happens to be my nightmare, though - hey, that's what it is.
Anyone able to read and not feeling like having anything worthwile around after finishing Harry F. Potter - why not check out W. Cleon Skousen's 'The Naked Communist'? Google it, goodread it, amazon it, get it. Get it? Got it? Good. Enjoy.
I mean jesus, we went over this, movies are not reality!
Brokedown Palace was based on a fairly frequent occurance, actually. Not hard to dig up articles aplenty of tourists getting unknowingly used as drug mules. That alone keeps me well and truly behind US lines.
You're right. It's not hard. Now count the number of instances of that event happening. Compare that to the number of Americans travelling abroad. You'll find that the former number is so small as to be statistically irrelevant.
My entire career revolves around traveling abroad. I've never once even seen anything harder than alcohol abroad, let alone been tricked into being a drug mule. You have to be fairly thick to get duped into being a drug mule these days, what with the "do not accept packages whose contents you don't know about" messages getting played on loop at airport security checkpoints.
Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about and your concept of the world is formed from fiction. Let it go.
GunsmithKitten: I'm paranoid, alright? Hellbird is right, I'm medically certifiably paranoid. There. I said it. Feel free to disregard me, wouldn't blame ya if you did.
Perhaps if you are medically certifiably paranoid, the responsible thing is not to make declarations about the rest of the world that you couldn't possibly know to be true?
Perhaps it would also be responsible not to demand your countrymen be put in danger of unrestricted gun violence just so you can have a little piece of metal that you can pretend makes you safe.
And perhaps you might acknowledge that your unusual mental state makes your ability to accurately assess your own level of danger rather limited, and as such it's rather irresponsible for you to argue so vehemently for a deadly weapon that might get turned on an innocent party in error.
Perhaps if you are medically certifiably paranoid, the responsible thing is not to make declarations about the rest of the world that you couldn't possibly know to be true?
Fine. Noted. Will drop subject.
Perhaps it would also be responsible not to demand your countrymen be put in danger of unrestricted gun violence just so you can have a little piece of metal that you can pretend makes you safe.
No. Especially since I'm not in favor of unrestricted gun violence in the first place.
Funnily enough, that is because the US is a news and cultural juggernaut and probably the power center of the world which leads to its influence and knowledge of its current affairs spreading across other nations. Hence, as a very basic example, more Australians will know that Washington DC is the capital of the US than yanks will know that Canberra is the capital of Australia. Similarly, both with large groups of people who do not know that the capital of Timor is Dili.
That not a 'Americans r dum OZZIES r smart' thing, it is just a function of the way that the news and cultural cycle works, I hear about yank news as a matter of course, you hear Aussie news incidentally when it is relevant to something else you wish to hear about. The perfect example of this being the R18 rating.
Also note that I was specifically indicating the proven lack of knowledge that kitten displays Re:other nations, not yanks in general.
I'm paranoid, alright? Hellbird is right, I'm medically certifiably paranoid. There. I said it. Feel free to disregard me, wouldn't blame ya if you did.
That is okay, a mental health injury is not a moral failing, I just want you to recognise the gaps in your knowledge and stop parroting the same provably wrong thing. I apologize if my tone has become too hostile, I just become frustrated when people keep shouting things that are very obviously wrong.
Hence why i'll drop the whole speculation on overseas travel and conditions.
Anyone able to read and not feeling like having anything worthwile around after finishing Harry F. Potter - why not check out W. Cleon Skousen's 'The Naked Communist'? Google it, goodread it, amazon it, get it. Get it? Got it? Good. Enjoy.
Because obviously if you "get it", you'll agree with it and the only possible way to not agree with it is that you're either too stupid to "get it", or you've been brainwashed by the commies, amirite?
The times of McCarthy are long gone. How about you leave them where they belong?
TornadoADV: Jesus, you people are lazy, come in, give your unwanted opinion that has been soundly defeated for going on 10 pages and then act all indignant when you get called out on the carpet. Typical internet filth behaviour.
It's a poll, a thread literally ASKING for people's opinions. Get over it.
If you don't want the opinions of people that might not agree with you then why in the bloody hell are you on here?
TornadoADV: that has been soundly defeated for going on 10 pages
I'm not even sure what argument I was making (Beyond "If you want to shoot some poor bastard that likely doesn't really give two damns about you and your guns and is just doing his or her job you're unhinged and have a very loose grasp of reality and really shouldn't have said guns in the first place") but please explain to me how I was (My specific argument of crazy people shouldn't have guns) 'soundly defeated', it might save a bit of time.
TornadoADV: and then act all indignant when you get called out on the carpet.
I 'act all indignant' because you insulted me and told me to read a 20 page thread in it's entirety before I'm allowed to 'open my gob'.
You deserve such revilement because you and Grey_Focks jump in, insult people who choose a certain option in the poll and make no effort to read people's reasons for said stance that has been spelled out for the entire thread and then declare them mental cases by fiat.
I don't need to explain myself further, why don't you bother reading the thread you butted into, eh?
TornadoADV: Jesus, you people are lazy, come in, give your unwanted opinion that has been soundly defeated for going on 10 pages and then act all indignant when you get called out on the carpet. Typical internet filth behaviour.
Seriously? "You people are lazy"? "Unwanted opinion"? "Soundly defeated"? "Internet filth behavior"?
YOU are all that is wrong with the internet. If you can't see why, then please get a sense of perspective and self-awareness, then come back.
If you can't be bothered to read the damn thread, keep your opinions to yourself and stick with voting in the poll and moving on. I dare say it is YOU is what is wrong with the internet, the soiled aura of self entitlement to spew your opinion on others with no regards to the state of the thread discussion disgusts me.
Anyone able to read and not feeling like having anything worthwile around after finishing Harry F. Potter - why not check out W. Cleon Skousen's 'The Naked Communist'? Google it, goodread it, amazon it, get it. Get it? Got it? Good. Enjoy.
Because obviously if you "get it", you'll agree with it and the only possible way to not agree with it is that you're either too stupid to "get it", or you've been brainwashed by the commies, amirite?
The times of McCarthy are long gone. How about you leave them where they belong?
You can't imagine how much I wish you were right.
Then again, you, on the other hand, probably don't.
GunsmithKitten: I'm paranoid, alright? Hellbird is right, I'm medically certifiably paranoid. There. I said it. Feel free to disregard me, wouldn't blame ya if you did.
Perhaps if you are medically certifiably paranoid, the responsible thing is not to make declarations about the rest of the world that you couldn't possibly know to be true?
Perhaps it would also be responsible not to demand your countrymen be put in danger of unrestricted gun violence just so you can have a little piece of metal that you can pretend makes you safe.
And perhaps you might acknowledge that your unusual mental state makes your ability to accurately assess your own level of danger rather limited, and as such it's rather irresponsible for you to argue so vehemently for a deadly weapon that might get turned on an innocent party in error.
"that you can pretend makes you safe" compared to...what?
A police force that wont be there (nor are required to be there) when you need it the most with its 10+ minute response time while you are dealing with a pyscho armed with a crowbar?
Hey, only 9 minutes and 30 seconds left to go while im tanking his crowbar with my face!
It is a stonecold and unfortunate fact that a gun will protect you better than the police.
"that you can pretend makes you safe" compared to...what?
A police force that wont be there (nor are required to be there) when you need it the most with its 10+ minute response time while you are dealing with a pyscho armed with a crowbar?
Hey, only 9 minutes and 30 seconds left to go while im tanking his crowbar with my face!
Question. Gun rights notwithstanding, why aren't there any initiatives, civilian initiatives, to actually increase police responsibility and obligation. That they are not legally obligated to protect the citizens is ludicrous and completely messed up. Even leaving the gun question off the table - gun control or no gun control - you will be safer if the police actually have, you know, the duty to protect.
I hope they wouldn't go after Mace and tasers, though. I'd prefer those.
funny enough tasers are illegal in NY. Mace and pepperspray are illegal-ish with legal ways to get around it. its complicated. I think it comes down to you are not allowed to buy pepperspray, but you can use it.
"that you can pretend makes you safe" compared to...what?
A police force that wont be there (nor are required to be there) when you need it the most with its 10+ minute response time while you are dealing with a pyscho armed with a crowbar?
Hey, only 9 minutes and 30 seconds left to go while im tanking his crowbar with my face!
Question. Gun rights notwithstanding, why aren't there any initiatives, civilian initiatives, to actually increase police responsibility and obligation. That they are not legally obligated to protect the citizens is ludicrous and completely messed up. Even leaving the gun question off the table - gun control or no gun control - you will be safer if the police actually have, you know, the duty to protect.
Why is nothing being done there?
Because that opens up police precincts to liability lawsuits if police officers can't reach a disturbance in time to prevent loss of property, limb or life. Police funds are already stretched to the limit as is, they don't need to have lawsuits piled on top of that.
TornadoADV: Jesus, you people are lazy, come in, give your unwanted opinion that has been soundly defeated for going on 10 pages and then act all indignant when you get called out on the carpet. Typical internet filth behaviour.
It's a poll, a thread literally ASKING for people's opinions. Get over it.
If you don't want the opinions of people that might not agree with you then why in the bloody hell are you on here?
TornadoADV: that has been soundly defeated for going on 10 pages
I'm not even sure what argument I was making (Beyond "If you want to shoot some poor bastard that likely doesn't really give two damns about you and your guns and is just doing his or her job you're unhinged and have a very loose grasp of reality and really shouldn't have said guns in the first place") but please explain to me how I was (My specific argument of crazy people shouldn't have guns) 'soundly defeated', it might save a bit of time.
TornadoADV: and then act all indignant when you get called out on the carpet.
I 'act all indignant' because you insulted me and told me to read a 20 page thread in it's entirety before I'm allowed to 'open my gob'.
You deserve such revilement because you and Grey_Focks jump in, insult people who choose a certain option in the poll and make no effort to read people's reasons for said stance that has been spelled out for the entire thread and then declare them mental cases by fiat.
I don't need to explain myself further, why don't you bother reading the thread you butted into, eh?
TornadoADV: Jesus, you people are lazy, come in, give your unwanted opinion that has been soundly defeated for going on 10 pages and then act all indignant when you get called out on the carpet. Typical internet filth behaviour.
Seriously? "You people are lazy"? "Unwanted opinion"? "Soundly defeated"? "Internet filth behavior"?
YOU are all that is wrong with the internet. If you can't see why, then please get a sense of perspective and self-awareness, then come back.
If you can't be bothered to read the damn thread, keep your opinions to yourself and stick with voting in the poll and moving on. I dare say it is YOU is what is wrong with the internet, the soiled aura of self entitlement to spew your opinion on others with no regards to the state of the thread discussion disgusts me.
Don't worry, Ickorus. I understand. Just ignore these people. It's true, though, your sentiment is a repeated one.
Because that opens up police precincts to liability lawsuits if police officers can't reach a disturbance in time to prevent loss of property, limb or life. Police funds are already stretched to the limit as is, they don't need to have lawsuits piled on top of that.
...seriously?
I'm sorry, but I think I'll just turn and walk away at this point since the bafflement I'm experiencing right now is such that I can't even express it. 'scuse me. I'm already sorry I asked.
"that you can pretend makes you safe" compared to...what?
A police force that wont be there (nor are required to be there) when you need it the most with its 10+ minute response time while you are dealing with a pyscho armed with a crowbar?
Hey, only 9 minutes and 30 seconds left to go while im tanking his crowbar with my face!
Question. Gun rights notwithstanding, why aren't there any initiatives, civilian initiatives, to actually increase police responsibility and obligation. That they are not legally obligated to protect the citizens is ludicrous and completely messed up. Even leaving the gun question off the table - gun control or no gun control - you will be safer if the police actually have, you know, the duty to protect.
Why is nothing being done there?
money logistics culture population density and how traffic/roads is setup (our road infrastructure is kinda bad and outdated in some places) police as an institute being afraid of lawyers/lawsuits as they are a popular target.
take your pick on any combination. As stupid as it sounds that the police are not required to protect you, there is a reason for it. The reason being (i imagine) lawyers looking for an easy score, and good luck trying to pass anything to curb their power in this country. Lawyers and politicians are untouchable as a group.
I dont have a problem so much with someone trying to steal my TV. I can replace that (of course i would prefer if they didnt steal it). But it is hard to know if an intruder is there for your stuff, or life, or combination thereof. A year or so ago, there was a string of breakins/murders where a group of 2 men would break in, sometimes kill the owners, and then loot at their convience. They even slashed the throats of an elderly couple who were still asleep. It is those people + the ones either on hard drugs or going through withdrawal that scare me as they tend to be sadistic or irrational. A rational theif i can work with.
If we can stop our sue happy culture, law enforcement and the medical industry would be in better shape. But lawyers hold a lot of power in this country, look at the WBC.
Just goes to show that no single group can be trusted with unchecked power. Hell, i would love to see lawsuit limits being put into place. No, your mental suffering is not worth 1 million dollars unless you went through something especially heinous to the point where you life is ruined beyond repair.
Because that opens up police precincts to liability lawsuits if police officers can't reach a disturbance in time to prevent loss of property, limb or life. Police funds are already stretched to the limit as is, they don't need to have lawsuits piled on top of that.
...seriously?
I'm sorry, but I think I'll just turn and walk away at this point since the bafflement I'm experiencing right now is such that I can't even express it. 'scuse me. I'm already sorry I asked.
It actually makes a bit of sense.
If you say they are obligated to do X, and they dont arrive in time to do X, and with how retardedly lawsuit happy a lot of people in the US are they will go after the cops for not making it in time, which might not be their fault, one can only move so fast after all, just making a bad situation worse for the responders.
Don't worry, Ickorus. I understand. Just ignore these people. It's true, though, your sentiment is a repeated one.
That's right, just stick your fingers in your ears, you're still a special little snow flake. Just like your mother tells you at night before tucking you in and turning the night light on.
Katatori-kun: You're right. It's not hard. Now count the number of instances of that event happening. Compare that to the number of Americans travelling abroad. You'll find that the former number is so small as to be statistically irrelevant.
While we are doing things like this, count the number of legally owned firearms in the hand's of law abiding citizens in he US, now count the instances that those legally owned firearms were used to commit a crime by their owners. You'll find that the former number is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. Now do the same thing again using the number of legally owned so called "assault weapons" my guess is your end result will be only a fraction of the previous number which was already so small as to be statistically irrelevant.
While we are doing things like this, count the number of legally owned firearms in the hand's of law abiding citizens in he US, now count the instances that those legally owned firearms were used to commit a crime by their owners.
Ehm, law abiding citizen, that's an expression that gets tossed around a lot. How do you tell a law abiding citizen from a criminal? The criminal had broken the law at some point. Before they broke the law, everyone was a law-abiding citizen. Nobody is a "born" criminal.
So, what does that mean? That right up until the owner of a firearm committed a crime with it, they were quite likely a law-abiding citizen. The only law-abiding citizens that you can trust will never cross the line to criminal are the deceased ones.
So guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens actually (and this sounds slightly scarier than it should be, for which I apologize) equal guns in the hands of potential future criminals.
Or well, I dunno, if you know of a sure-fire way to tell which law-abiding citizen will never become a criminal with 100% certainty, well, no objection against them owning a firearm from me. I do not know any way to determine.
Don't worry, Ickorus. I understand. Just ignore these people. It's true, though, your sentiment is a repeated one.
That's right, just stick your fingers in your ears, you're still a special little snow flake. Just like your mother tells you at night before tucking you in and turning the night light on.
That seems irrelevant. It seems to me that you've turned to ill-fitting condescending mocking as a substitute for arguing against me. You didn't have to start this argument, or reply, as the only thing that would warrant such a response would be your own over-defensiveness. And being over-defensive implies that you know your cause to be wrong. And you are wrong. You are very wrong. Not in your original frustration that the post you responded to was a repeat, but in your attempt to justify attacking someone trying to sympathize with someone who was really taking an undeserved amount of heat for an action that was not as unreasonable as it was made to sound, coming from someone who wasn't acting out of line in neither sentiment exaggeration nor grammatical illness nor trolling. Not to mention, your quip was really not as comedic as you probably thought it was, possibly because of its lack of necessity, but mostly because you probably aren't that witty and shouldn't be making short peanut-gallery flings. Especially not to make a point, and have it be at best tangential to the defendant's line of speech. Also, my mother doesn't tell me I'm a special snow flake, partially because I'm mature/smart enough to know that snowflake is one word, and partially because there'd be no point in saying anything at all if my fingers were stuck in my ears. I think we both know that you're struggling to find a reason to continue your poorly rationalized argument, but hopefully this paragraph will give you something else to respond to, and perhaps you can use the opportunity to practice your ability to create witty banter, or at the very least, clarity and common sense, such that when you want to state a case, you don't instead seem to be attempting to divert the conversation elsewhere. If nothing else, it'll give the other people that were mentioned in that array of quotations something to judge.
Katatori-kun: You're right. It's not hard. Now count the number of instances of that event happening. Compare that to the number of Americans travelling abroad. You'll find that the former number is so small as to be statistically irrelevant.
While we are doing things like this, count the number of legally owned firearms in the hand's of law abiding citizens in he US, now count the instances that those legally owned firearms were used to commit a crime by their owners. You'll find that the former number is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. Now do the same thing again using the number of legally owned so called "assault weapons" my guess is your end result will be only a fraction of the previous number which was already so small as to be statistically irrelevant.
Actually, no. It's not statistically the same thing at all. The number of Americans who get tricked into being drug mules has got to be infinitesimally small. It's so small that stories when it does happen are interesting precisely because of their novelty. They're also events that are easily preventable. "Will you carry my drugs into the airport?" "No." Done.
Vegosiux has already pointed out your shifting of the numbers with your "law-abiding" trick, but the number of guns in the US used in crimes is substantially higher. Furthermore, it is not possible for me to prevent myself from being a victim to gun violence. Even if I had a gun, it wouldn't be preventable.
Ryotknife: "that you can pretend makes you safe" compared to...what?
No need for comparison. The fact stands for itself. GunsmithKitten has been talking as though her gun prevents her from being assaulted. It does not.
A police force that wont be there (nor are required to be there) when you need it the most with its 10+ minute response time while you are dealing with a pyscho armed with a crowbar?
Hey, only 9 minutes and 30 seconds left to go while im tanking his crowbar with my face!
It is a stonecold and unfortunate fact that a gun will protect you better than the police.
I can't believe you just used "stonecold... fact" and "psycho armed with a crowbar" in the same argument. When, praytell, was the last time you encountered a "psycho armed with a crowbar"?
I'd even take good odds that you've never encountered a violent psychopath of any kind in your life.
Don't worry, Ickorus. I understand. Just ignore these people. It's true, though, your sentiment is a repeated one.
That's right, just stick your fingers in your ears, you're still a special little snow flake. Just like your mother tells you at night before tucking you in and turning the night light on.
That seems irrelevant. It seems to me that you've turned to ill-fitting condescending mocking as a substitute for arguing against me. You didn't have to start this argument, or reply, as the only thing that would warrant such a response would be your own over-defensiveness. And being over-defensive implies that you know your cause to be wrong. And you are wrong. You are very wrong. Not in your original frustration that the post you responded to was a repeat, but in your attempt to justify attacking someone trying to sympathize with someone who was really taking an undeserved amount of heat for an action that was not as unreasonable as it was made to sound, coming from someone who wasn't acting out of line in neither sentiment exaggeration nor grammatical illness nor trolling. Not to mention, your quip was really not as comedic as you probably thought it was, possibly because of its lack of necessity, but mostly because you probably aren't that witty and shouldn't be making short peanut-gallery flings. Especially not to make a point, and have it be at best tangential to the defendant's line of speech. Also, my mother doesn't tell me I'm a special snow flake, partially because I'm mature/smart enough to know that snowflake is one word, and partially because there'd be no point in saying anything at all if my fingers were stuck in my ears. I think we both know that you're struggling to find a reason to continue your poorly rationalized argument, but hopefully this paragraph will give you something else to respond to, and perhaps you can use the opportunity to practice your ability to create witty banter, or at the very least, clarity and common sense, such that when you want to state a case, you don't instead seem to be attempting to divert the conversation elsewhere. If nothing else, it'll give the other people that were mentioned in that array of quotations something to judge.
I recommend paragraphs, my friend. Grammar is a good thing. Also, all my statements are sitting there still, in the thread, waiting for you to read. Come back when you manage to summon up the maturity to actually read the thread.
Vegosiux: Ehm, law abiding citizen, that's an expression that gets tossed around a lot. How do you tell a law abiding citizen from a criminal? The criminal had broken the law at some point. Before they broke the law, everyone was a law-abiding citizen. Nobody is a "born" criminal.
So, what does that mean? That right up until the owner of a firearm committed a crime with it, they were quite likely a law-abiding citizen. The only law-abiding citizens that you can trust will never cross the line to criminal are the deceased ones.
So guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens actually (and this sounds slightly scarier than it should be, for which I apologize) equal guns in the hands of potential future criminals.
Or well, I dunno, if you know of a sure-fire way to tell which law-abiding citizen will never become a criminal with 100% certainty, well, no objection against them owning a firearm from me. I do not know any way to determine.
In this case (and I thought it was rather obvious) a law abiding citizen is anyone who can legally purchase a firearm. There seems to be a lot of people on this forum that are totally ignorant on US gun law (probably cause they don't live in the US) and they have this idea that anyone can just walk right into a gun store throw some cash on the counter and walk out armed to the teeth 30 seconds later. Sorry to burst your bubble folks it does not work like that. With almost all felony conviction's (including non violent convictions) you lose the right to own or purchase firearms for extended periods of time or even for life. You can also lose the right to own firearms if a restraining order is issued on you.
I hope they wouldn't go after Mace and tasers, though. I'd prefer those.
funny enough tasers are illegal in NY. Mace and pepperspray are illegal-ish with legal ways to get around it. its complicated. I think it comes down to you are not allowed to buy pepperspray, but you can use it.
So, in NY, non-lethal methods of self-defense are illegal, while lethal methods of defense aren't?
...
It's easy to see why people are annoyed with US gun obsession.
(I just checked, actually, and where I live, the tasers and Mace are also illegal. HOWEVER, you can keep a can of pepper spray on you if it's labeled "Bear Spray" and you convince any questioning cops that you use it for self-defense against bears. Still better than NY policy!)
EDIT: Actually, might not be better than NY policy. How do you get around pepper spray bans in NY?
TornadoADV: Jesus, you people are lazy, come in, give your unwanted opinion that has been soundly defeated for going on 10 pages and then act all indignant when you get called out on the carpet. Typical internet filth behaviour.
Seriously? "You people are lazy"? "Unwanted opinion"? "Soundly defeated"? "Internet filth behavior"?
YOU are all that is wrong with the internet. If you can't see why, then please get a sense of perspective and self-awareness, then come back.
If you can't be bothered to read the damn thread, keep your opinions to yourself and stick with voting in the poll and moving on. I dare say it is YOU is what is wrong with the internet, the soiled aura of self entitlement to spew your opinion on others with no regards to the state of the thread discussion disgusts me.
You know what disgusts ME? Your flagrant disrespect for established code of conduct and unreasonable insistence that you're beyond everyone else.
Don't worry, Ickorus. I understand. Just ignore these people. It's true, though, your sentiment is a repeated one.
That's right, just stick your fingers in your ears, you're still a special little snow flake. Just like your mother tells you at night before tucking you in and turning the night light on.
See? You can't respond without immature insult. YOU'VE LOST THE ARGUMENT. Not only that, but you are in imminent danger of mod wrath. I may not have read every last word of the thread (I think six pages is enough to see how most any gun argument is going, seeing how they're almost always the same with minor permutations), but you can't even keep track of the RULESET of the thread.
Oh, and if you must respond, please point a finger at where my "soiled aura of self entitlement" is. Here's were YOU showed yours:
TornadoADV: Jesus, you people are lazy, come in, give your unwanted opinion that has been soundly defeated for going on 10 pages and then act all indignant when you get called out on the carpet. Typical internet filth behaviour.
In this case (and I thought it was rather obvious) a law abiding citizen is anyone who can legally purchase a firearm. There seems to be a lot of people on this forum that are totally ignorant on US gun law (probably cause they don't live in the US) and they have this idea that anyone can just walk right into a gun store throw some cash on the counter and walk out armed to the teeth 30 seconds later. Sorry to burst your bubble folks it does not work like that. With almost all felony conviction's (including non violent convictions) you lose the right to own or purchase firearms for extended periods of time or even for life. You can also lose the right to own firearms if a restraining order is issued on you.
Right. Maybe you could read my post again and you'll maybe notice that I said nothing about the availability of guns to convicted felons, now have I? I'm not sure which bubble you're bursting, but it sure as hell ain't mine.
What I said is that everyone is a law-abiding citizen right up to when they commit a crime, so every law-abiding citizen that's not died yet has the potential to become a criminal at some point in the future for whatever reasons. So when you're selling a gun to a law-abiding citizen, you're still selling a gun to someone who might become a criminal in the future, potentially using that very gun in the crime they commit.
Now what's quite interesting here, "You can never be too careful" can go both ways, can't it? I mean, that previous paragraph of this post looks a little...paranoid, no? I mean I look downright scared that everyone who's buying a gun is going to shoot up some place the first chance they get. Quite paranoid, I admit. Almost as paranoid as expecting a killer around every corner (that you allegedly need a gun to defend yourself from) and a child molester in every bush (that you allegedly need a gun to defend your children from).
Katatori-kun: Furthermore, it is not possible for me to prevent myself from being a victim to gun violence. Even if I had a gun, it wouldn't be preventable.
Unless you lock yourself in a steel vault for the rest of your life it's not possible for you to prevent yourself from being the victim of anything so whats your point? Unfortunately we don't live in a utopia we live in the real world and even if you could flip some magic switch and suddenly make all the guns go away noting is really gonna change. There's still gonna be people that will exploit, manipulate, coerce, hurt, maim, and kill other people to get what they want.
I'm not sure what opinion he's talking about....that mental people shouldn't have guns? That shooting someone just doing their job is a bit crazy, and downright counter-productive to your cause? These were "soundly defeated"? I think I'm done with the internet for tonight.