Yeah you're right i dont know ANYTHING about the man BUT NEITHER DO YOU HB! Here's the one thing i DO know, he is a citizen not a cop. So what right does he have to endanger those lives around him?
What happens if he stands up shoots the bad guy in the leg and the bad guy kills him returning fire, Is then the bad guy not defending his own life? given that Williams fires first?
You need to relax HB, im just asking questions, sorry if you dont like the answers you find
Btw you still havent answered my question. Why does someone not in the military or police need an automatic or semi automatic weapon?
Why does someone not in the military or police need an automatic or semi automatic weapon?
Plenty of bona fide collectors of military equipment. Also, 3 gun shoot participants (as well as other disciplines), competitive or otherwise. I've seen some enthusiasts use a Lee Enfield jungle carbine for it, but their scores reflect their non competitive participation. I myself use a .22 pistol for the speed range segment, which requires EXTREME accuracy on the top 2 inches to get the falling plates to go over. That makes me not as competitive as the really serious participants, but I'm not home enough to practice as much as they do, so it's more a pleasant weekend on the ranges with friends.
Here's the one thing i DO know, he is a citizen not a cop. So what right does he have to endanger those lives around him?
What happens if he stands up shoots the bad guy in the leg and the bad guy kills him returning fire, Is then the bad guy not defending his own life? given that Williams fires first?
How can you tell he is actually "endangering" the lives of people around him? Does he shoot aimlessly in their direction or does he aim and shoot only at the criminals? Oh, that's right, he lets off two rounds hitting one of the perps and nobody else, then lets loose a few more at both of them, ensuring both are hit. Who else was "in danger" by someone with a Concealed Carry licence (just in case you don't understand that part, it means he has gone through more training and testing than any of these people he shot at. You fail ONE part of the testing, you don't carry. Simples.)? Answer, NOBODY, except in your mind.
What if the bad guy returns fire after being hit in the leg? Buddy, you best stop watching Bruce Willis movies. If you get hit by a .38 in the leg then the chances of you still standing up are pretty damn small. Also, only ONE person had a legally held and legally used firearm, the "bad guy", literally, wouldn't have a leg to stand on and would be looking at a few needles in his arm. So take that worthless attempt at an argument elsewhere as well.
Oh, why do you "need" a big TV, why do you "need" a fancy car, why do you "need" a computer? You don't "need" them, you can live quite easily without them. But if I want to use a semi-auto, or even a full auto, SAFELY on a closed, supervised, shooting range then who the hell are YOU to try and deny me that? If I want to loose off a couple of hundred rounds at a piece of paper 100m away, why should I NOT be allowed to because of your paranoia? When you can answer that RATIONALLY, then you'll maybe realise why people want to use weapons like that, why they want to improve their "skills", why they want to have that "control" over themselves to be able to use a firearm safely and accurately.
(#404) errr... hellsbrink, you do understand that the "product placement" being refered to is the use of an advertisers product during the actual movie. i.e., part of the movie. ?
So hellsbrink now understands what 'product placement' means in a movie context ?..
Quote:
via hellsbrink #407;
The thing is, stuckgear, you post a link to that "study" BUT more recent studies have not only asked the youngsters questions but have also "studied the studies".
To date, there has not been one instance of CAUSALITY found in any study. There may be CORRELATION, but that's like saying "the planet's getting warmer, there's more CO˛ in the atmosphere, therefore CO˛ causes the planet to warm" as there is no actual PROOF that CO˛ is the only thing that affects this planet. The same goes for video games and movies. There is absolutely no evidence that what makes anyone "snap" is a game or movie, for the simple reason that there have been so many others throughout history, even in recent times, where the killers did not say anything about the movies, the family of the killers said nothing, the police, etc, found nothing. No link was found. Of course, the usual hysterical media will always try to find a link between things, like how they made hay with the fact that Holmes used hookers and an adult dating site, or how the UK media went monkeypoop over the game Manhunt in 2004 over how a teenager beat another to death despite it being the VICTIM who owned the game (even the Police stated that there was no link, that it was narcotics related. And why a 14 year old had a game rated as "18" has never been addressed either), or the scandalous reporting that led to another shooting being blamed on the perp playing World of Warcraft ()and, as has been reported, the massacre could have been linked to a Batman COMIC from 1986 instead of the current movie (which Holmes obviously did not see). So are comic books an influence too, and, if so, why don't we have millions of people around the world jumping into telephone boxes to put their underwear on the outside of their trousers?
So maybe you can do what Flying Binghi has, so far, failed to do. Tell us which movie inspired Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan, which movie scene Holmes re-enacted, why there have been many, many rampage killings from LONG before these movies and games existed, and explain why a movie or game manages to influence ONE person out of the millions who watch/play them.
Binghi tried to make a link to movies and smoking/drinking. So maybe you can tell us which movie inspired you to smoke a certain brand of cigarette or drink a certain brand of alcohol. If you have never smoked, explain why as, according to Binghi, you would have been influenced so therefore would have decided to put a cancer stick in your mouth. And I know why I started smoking and drinking, and it had sod all to do with any advertising but was purely down to those around me, what they smoked, what they drank. I never smoked Rothmans because they sponsored the Williams F1 team, or Marlboro sponsoring McLaren, Embassy sponsoring snooker, etc, and I never saw sales of NiQuitin go through the roof when they sponsored Williams. No advertising has ever affected me in the way "studies" claim, or, indeed, Binghi claims, and I know I am far from being the only one on the planet like that.
...maybe not. No mention of understanding what product placement is re movies..
Lets start having a look-see at the hellsbrink wikipedia list...
(Sundry extracts via a not always trustworthy wikipedia)
Howard Barton Unruh was an American mass murderer... who killed 13 people on September 6, 1949, in Camden, New Jersey,... Unruh is considered the first single-episode mass murderer in U.S. history... ...He was reported to have been depressed about having had "homosexual liaisons" in a Philadelphia movie theater... Howard Unruh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Movie theater eh.... Hmmm... Lotsa people go to the movies so probably just co-incidental.
Moving on...
Charles Raymond Starkweather was an American teenaged spree killer who murdered eleven people in Nebraska and Wyoming during a two-month road trip with his 14-year-old girlfriend... After viewing the film Rebel Without a Cause, Starkweather developed a James Dean fixation and began to groom his hairstyle and dress himself to look like Dean. Starkweather related to Dean's rebellious screen persona, believing that he had found a kindred spirit of sorts, someone who had suffered torment similar to his own whom he could admire... Charles Starkweather - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now try answering the question about how violent movies and video games were responsible for rampage killings BEFORE said movies and games were invented, and explain which movies made Thomas Hamilton, Anders Breivik, Michael Ryan, Martin Bryant or any of the other examples I listed. You can't, because your whole argument is based on the fantasies of the "blame culture" and rabid left.
Also, explain how "product placement" and being surrounded by advertisements for Marlboro cigarettes when I was a kid NEVER made me smoke them. Again, you can't because that whole "argument" is nothing but you talking out of your backside in an attempt to cause a reaction by parroting the same drivel again and again.
And try looking at actual reports and not Wikipedia, I told you I didn't use that but, in your tiny mind, it's something else you feel you MUST mention just as a way to attack me since you know your attempts at proving people wrong have failed miserably. That isn't even worth calling pathetic.
Just a couple more examples of why, when it comes to murderous psychos, guns are beside the point and aren't even the weapon of choice for those wanting to go really big. These kind of freaks aren't a recent manifestation of modern times.
HB, sorry mate you fail. For mine, you are part of the problem not part of the solution.
Try answering this one (if you can, that is); why do YOU need to have an automatic or semi automatic weapon. Does shooting a couple of hundred rounds at a piece of paper 100m away make you feel like a big man? Or are you just over compensating for your short comings?
Last time I checked no one ever went on a killing spree with a big screen TV.
You are obviously a very angry person who can't see both sides of the argument or simply isn't willing to. Presuming that you do own weapons (cause its your god given right no doubt), then that scares me.
Quite simply, we live in a free society, at least, I think we do. WHY anyone owns, or wants to own, 400' yachts, $60 million planes, P-51s, weapons of any description, big TVs is none of your's or mine's interest. The ONLY interest society has is WHAT they do with their chosen "toys". Legal use, society remains silent.
I have friends with legally owned .50 caliber rifles, fully automatic military weapons, Civil War cannons, the lot. They enjoy making noise, blowing holes in paper at 1000m in competition, so where's the harm, except in your fevered pop psychology? My gig is sporting clays with fine shotguns, by the way.
* * *
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity”
S. Freud
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 4th Aug 2012 at 01:14.
If we ever do devolve to a Mad Max world, wouldn't those who had secured a modest arsenal with a few thousand rounds be deemed prescient?
Better yet a huge inventory of hockey masks. I'll be able to trade hockey masks for any essential such as food, ammo, or booze. Because without the hockey masks, people might not even notice the world ended.
Well GF, if we live as you say in a free society then it is in MY interests, for I am free to choose what I believe. I personally believe we should all be able to protect ourselves and our families but that no one NEEDS to have anything more than a handgun for that purpose.
"We all go a little mad sometime" - Ted Bundy
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, It would be reasonable to shoot back wi you own gun" - Dalai Lama XIV
"As long as there are guns, The individual that's wants a gun for a crime is going to have one and is going to get it" - Ronald Reagan
There's a thousand quotes out there, what are you trying to say?
FakePilot, my hobby is Pool, 8 ball and 9 ball. Lotsa people been hit with cues in bars and I'm sure somewhere out there someone's died from a cue stick injury. When someone goes on a murderous rampage with a cue stick and kills multiple people you have my permission to ban it. Okay?
And what makes you all believe you'd still be alive in a Mad Max type world? Those with arsenals would be the first targeted don't you think? Although it's a very convenient fallback; when the madman with the biggest nuclear toy destroys the world all the rest if us with dangerous toys will be okay.
Just remember here people, I'm only asking a question, why is everyone do defensive?
Try answering this one (if you can, that is); why do YOU need to have an automatic or semi automatic weapon. Does shooting a couple of hundred rounds at a piece of paper 100m away make you feel like a big man? Or are you just over compensating for your short comings?
That was answered some posts back. Read the bloody thread and then you will have your answer.
Oh, richo, plenty of people have been some of the multiple injuries, and killings, from all sorts of blunt instruments. Pool cues have been used in murders, on many occasions, even to the extent of a guy ALMOST getting the chance to go off on one in a supermarket in the UK when armed with a snooker cue and a knuckleduster. The balls of your hobby are also well known weapons, again, they are "blunt instruments" (especially when put in a bag or sock, when they become lethal).
So I can find plenty information regarding the use of pool cues in fatalities, "attempted" rampages, multiple attack victims in gang fights. Yet you are trying to say that your "hobby" is somehow innocent when the very "tools" you use have been used in hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks worldwide in the last 10 years?
Oh, and we are defensive because of the clowns who think that banning firearms will mean an end to people killing each other. You know, the sort of clown who doesn't have a clue about how the real world actually works.
Yeah I know those clowns HB, they seem angry, can't opine on something without getting aggressive and cant or won't answer questions. I asked about YOU, I wanted to know what it brings you so I could perchance understand it from the other side of the argument.
Because I don't understand it. You want to argue about it, no problem do it with someone else, cause I wanted an intelligent answer. You seem more intent comparing death by pool ball to guns. You're kidding right? What's the weather like on Planet Delusion?
All I want to know is why you personally feel the need to have one or more guns other than a handgun for personal protection? Not because you have the freedom to or you choose to or your constitution, rights or chosen deity lets you but why you choose to.
Let's avoid the name calling shall we? We're men aren't we?
FakePilot, my hobby is Pool, 8 ball and 9 ball. Lotsa people been hit with cues in bars and I'm sure somewhere out there someone's died from a cue stick injury. When someone goes on a murderous rampage with a cue stick and kills multiple people you have my permission to ban it. Okay?
Yes but pool is part of the drinking culture. Ban pool in bars and alcohol related deaths would drop. Sounds stupid? It is. But an idea like that would really appeal to a teetotaler wouldn't it? This is the kind of crap gun nuts have to put up with.
I personally believe we should all be able to protect ourselves and our families but that no one NEEDS to have anything more than a handgun for that purpose.
Your own ideas as to what represents need, and/or the reasons for the Right being enumerated and protected in our Constitution are your own self-imposed limits. Agree or not, the Right to bear arms is interpreted and protected more broadly than your own personal feelings.
There's a reason for that. If you want understand why I suggest you quit looking for spoon-feeding. Crack a book or two and educate yourself as to why the Right was enumerated and Constitutionally protected in the first place. It's not top secret information. Start with John Locke and work forward, there's plenty of essays, articles, and written material there for you to enjoy.
Your question/statement is no different than me asking/saying...
"Why does the press NEED to have TV, radio, internet, and machine-driven presses that can shoot out papers like bullets from a machine gun? That's not necessary! My personal belief is that the press can get by with type-setting by hand on a hand-cranked printing press, papers delivered by wagon. Those who wrote the Constitution could not have foreseen the potential damage done by mis-using the pen with such advances in technology and media."
)and, as has been reported, the massacre could have been linked to a Batman COMIC from 1986 instead of the current movie (which Holmes obviously did not see). So are comic books an influence too, and, if so, why don't we have millions of people around the world jumping into telephone boxes to put their underwear on the outside of their trousers?
