Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Greatest Country on Earth!

15791011

Posts

  • CavilCavil Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    And their opinion of the latter wasn't so great immediately after that whole "Tank Running Over Two 14-Year-Old Schoolgirls Without Any Accountability" incident.

    Cavil on
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I would imagine that flag-burning gets people riled up because, having recited the Pledge of Allegiance daily for years, they have tied the flag inextricably to their notions of patriotism, and from there to their notions of Being Good People. These are generally also the people who don't set much store in the Bill of Rights, and generally think that the First Amendment only protects speech which they personally approve.

    Oh, and veterans. Military has a lot of weird flag customs, and so it is near and dear to their hearts. My grandparents have a flag on their front lawn, and they raise it at some times and lower it at others and all that kind of stuff.

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • CavilCavil Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Ever notice how veterans don't get much respect, especially if they favor pragmatism over pride? Kerry - who went to Vietnam despite being a child of privilege who could've easily squirmed his way out of being shipped off (as was the case with a certain 43rd President), McCain - who spent 5.5 years in a POW camp, the eight retired generals that called for Rumsfeld's resignation, Shinseki - who lost his leg after stepping on a land mine but was dismissed by the administration for correctly gauging the number of troops necessary to occupy Iraq.

    Cavil on
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    My dad got his lawyer to keep him from having to become a veteran.

    It's one of the things I respect about him most.

    Also because it kept me from not existing.

    Veterans of that war are either people who were deluded by society, weren't clever enough to get out of it or flee, people who were desperate, or people who're just fucked up.

    I can feel -sorry- for them, sure. But respect has to be earned in some way other than what amounted to blood sports.

    Incenjucar on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    urbman wrote:
    My economics Teach in high school said "the best way to boost the economy was to got to war."
    Our economy didn't boom because of going to war in WWII. It boomed because we were the only major industrialized country that didn't go to war until quite late, and we were the only major industrialized country that wasn't bombed to shit during the war. We also had pragmatic and constructive social services in place to build society during the war (CCC, WPA, females entering the workforce) and when the war was over (GI bill etc).

    WWI was similar but on a smaller scale. No other war to my knowledge has spurred the economy. The Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, have all been immensely expensive.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • CavilCavil Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Incenjucar wrote:
    My dad got his lawyer to keep him from having to become a veteran.

    It's one of the things I respect about him most.

    Also because it kept me from not existing.

    Veterans of that war are either people who were deluded by society, weren't clever enough to get out of it or flee, people who were desperate, or people who're just fucked up.

    I can feel -sorry- for them, sure. But respect has to be earned in some way other than what amounted to blood sports.

    Yeah, but I'm talking about veterans who've seen and experienced what war does to people and are hence less inclined towards the military option. In a culture that relegates peace to something that can only be achieved through the barrel of a gun, these cooler heads are marginalized in spite of their years of dedicated service and sacrifice.

    Cavil on
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
  • SpeedySwafSpeedySwaf Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    urbman wrote:
    My economics Teach in high school said "the best way to boost the economy was to got to war."
    Our economy didn't boom because of going to war in WWII. It boomed because we were the only major industrialized country that didn't go to war until quite late, and we were the only major industrialized country that wasn't bombed to shit during the war. We also had pragmatic and constructive social services in place to build society during the war (CCC, WPA, females entering the workforce) and when the war was over (GI bill etc).
    From what I understand WWII helped get us out of the Depression, but the fact we were never bombed helped us stay out of it, and of course on top.

    SpeedySwaf on
    Deguello wrote:
    Nintendo set up a DS buffet and all the third parties went to the PSP Diner. The Diner came down with a case of botulism and everybody wonders why Nintendo is fat when they return.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    SpeedySwaf wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    urbman wrote:
    My economics Teach in high school said "the best way to boost the economy was to got to war."
    Our economy didn't boom because of going to war in WWII. It boomed because we were the only major industrialized country that didn't go to war until quite late, and we were the only major industrialized country that wasn't bombed to shit during the war. We also had pragmatic and constructive social services in place to build society during the war (CCC, WPA, females entering the workforce) and when the war was over (GI bill etc).
    From what I understand WWII helped get us out of the Depression, but the fact we were never bombed helped us stay out of it, and of course on top.
    Maybe us selling things to other countries fighting in WWII helped the economy. That is, wars can be good for the economy if you're not actually fighting them.

    How would fighting a war be good for an economy? Experience points and sweet drops?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    SpeedySwaf wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    urbman wrote:
    My economics Teach in high school said "the best way to boost the economy was to got to war."
    Our economy didn't boom because of going to war in WWII. It boomed because we were the only major industrialized country that didn't go to war until quite late, and we were the only major industrialized country that wasn't bombed to shit during the war. We also had pragmatic and constructive social services in place to build society during the war (CCC, WPA, females entering the workforce) and when the war was over (GI bill etc).
    From what I understand WWII helped get us out of the Depression, but the fact we were never bombed helped us stay out of it, and of course on top.
    Maybe us selling things to other countries fighting in WWII helped the economy. That is, wars can be good for the economy if you're not actually fighting them.

    How would fighting a war be good for an economy? Experience points and sweet drops?

    Massive upswings in manufacturing due to war needs (vehicles, ammo, etc), thus creating near universal employment.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Cavil wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    My dad got his lawyer to keep him from having to become a veteran.

    It's one of the things I respect about him most.

    Also because it kept me from not existing.

    Veterans of that war are either people who were deluded by society, weren't clever enough to get out of it or flee, people who were desperate, or people who're just fucked up.

    I can feel -sorry- for them, sure. But respect has to be earned in some way other than what amounted to blood sports.

    Yeah, but I'm talking about veterans who've seen and experienced what war does to people and are hence less inclined towards the military option. In a culture that relegates peace to something that can only be achieved through the barrel of a gun, these cooler heads are marginalized in spite of their years of dedicated service and sacrifice.

    Yeah. I -do- respect the fact that some of them didn't try to justify going to war and instead actually LEARNED from the experience.

    Sadly, learning is not exactly a respected event in the US.

    Incenjucar on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    Corvus wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    Maybe us selling things to other countries fighting in WWII helped the economy. That is, wars can be good for the economy if you're not actually fighting them.

    How would fighting a war be good for an economy? Experience points and sweet drops?

    Massive upswings in manufacturing due to war needs (vehicles, ammo, etc), thus creating near universal employment.
    This can be accomplished by massive deficit spending for any rationale. The "Two Cars For Every Citizen Plan" while absurd would amount to the same thing.

    In any case, we're no longer a manufacturing-based economy. It's difficult to see how increasing demand for manufactured goods would be of help to modern America.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2006
    I would like to posture the idea that many gun-owning americans are in fact responsible people who choose to have arms for sporting or defensive purposes. Also, you have to realize that of the citizens who legally obtain a firearm, less than 2% of that group will ever be convicted of a firearms related crime.

    We have hoods here just like you do in the UK, but they get their guns out of the back of someones truck under the overpass.

    I, personally, support the second amendment as a means to an end, as I feel that one of our last vestiges of protection against tyranny is our right to our own weapons. (Though many anti-gun groups will argue that this clause of the second amendment was in reference to maintaining a "well-regulated militia"

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • Eliot DuboisEliot Dubois Registered User
    edited December 2006
    arod_77 wrote:
    I would like to posture the idea that many gun-owning americans are in fact responsible people who choose to have arms for sporting or defensive purposes. Also, you have to realize that of the citizens who legally obtain a firearm, less than 2% of that group will ever be convicted of a firearms related crime.

    We have hoods here just like you do in the UK, but they get their guns out of the back of someones truck under the overpass.

    I, personally, support the second amendment as a means to an end, as I feel that one of our last vestiges of protection against tyranny is our right to our own weapons. (Though many anti-gun groups will argue that this clause of the second amendment was in reference to maintaining a "well-regulated militia"

    I'm not against the 2nd Amendment or responsible gun ownership in any ways, but the general availibility of legal firearms in the USA does increase the number of not so legal ones. Hell, up until a few years ago you could travel a bit to a gun show and get a firearm with out a permit!

    Eliot Dubois on
    laliban.jpg
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    I'm not against the 2nd Amendment or responsible gun ownership in any ways, but the general availibility of legal firearms in the USA does increase the number of not so legal ones. Hell, up until a few years ago you could travel a bit to a gun show and get a firearm with out a permit!
    I believe that many states do not require permits to own a gun, though background checks are IIRC required. Massachusetts has among the most restrictive gun laws.

    Also, I'm not at all convinced that the high level of gun ownership decreases crime. Of course it's impossible to run a full control and there are many cultural factors involved, but many of the real gun fanatics I've met have struck me as spectacularly sanguine, unstable and irresponsible personalities.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • KMGorKMGor Registered User
    edited December 2006
    tynic wrote:
    Personally, I'm a little sick of hearing "You don't understaaaannnnnndddd. We're so biiiiggggg and diveerrrrsssee. Those guys don't speak for all of us!"

    Own your shit.

    What exactly do you want us to do?

    That aside, I've met my share of Europeans who really don't understand how big (I'll ignore diverse) the USA is. For example, people here in Missouri who think we can make an easy weekend trip to New York City (which is apparently the only American city that matters to them at all, BTW).

    In case any of you don't know, it's a 15 hour drive if you're lucky.
    Why does the stereotype american you see on sitcoms or in movies (I really don't know another kind, so feel free to correct me/call me a moron if this isn't the way many think) remain so stanchly pro-guns. They kill people. I don't think they should be outlawed - they certainly have their purposes, but goddam there's no need to keep one in the house 'for protection'.

    More than 40% of US households have guns. People here have them for a variety of reasons. Hunting, shooting for fun, collecting, and self-protection are the 4 ones which matter, essentially. Oh yeah, and keeping the King of England out of your face.

    I wouldn't call having a gun for self-protection a "need", but there are a lot of things which aren't needed. Guns, in homes, cars and on persons, are used in self-defense pretty often in the USA. One attitude that is pretty prevalent here is that self-defense is important, and killing someone attacking you is justifiable. I can't say I disagree.

    I don't actually know if the attitude about self-defense is that different in the rest of the world, though I am aware that carrying anything (gun or not) for self-defense is illegal in the UK. I remember reading an article by some people in the UK attempting to ban butcher knives, which amused me a great deal.

    And yeah, there is definetly a strong gun culture here in the USA. Some people go nuts over them, but most gun owners don't. They just have them, and use them when the situation warrants it.

    KMGor on
    Iacobus wrote:
    Fatty wrote:
    American beer tastes like piss.
    Wait, that's an insult? I just figured Americans like drinking warm urine out of cans.
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Corvus wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    Maybe us selling things to other countries fighting in WWII helped the economy. That is, wars can be good for the economy if you're not actually fighting them.

    How would fighting a war be good for an economy? Experience points and sweet drops?

    Massive upswings in manufacturing due to war needs (vehicles, ammo, etc), thus creating near universal employment.
    This can be accomplished by massive deficit spending for any rationale. The "Two Cars For Every Citizen Plan" while absurd would amount to the same thing.

    In any case, we're no longer a manufacturing-based economy. It's difficult to see how increasing demand for manufactured goods would be of help to modern America.

    Well, if by "good for a country" you meant "good for modern America" you should have said so. I was giving the fairly standard example of what happened to the US, and Canadian, economies due to WWII. Rearmament played a large roll in ending the Great Depression.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2006
    Its not about "going nuts over guns" its about not having to have your dick blowing in the wind when two crack addicts corner you in an alley or break into your home and try to rape your daughter

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    arod_77 wrote:
    I, personally, support the second amendment as a means to an end, as I feel that one of our last vestiges of protection against tyranny is our right to our own weapons. (Though many anti-gun groups will argue that this clause of the second amendment was in reference to maintaining a "well-regulated militia"

    Do you really think the privately owned guns in America would make much difference at all in the theoretical event of a military coup in the USA?

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2006
    No, but it helps preserve at least some semblance of cultural suspicion about the government, and that alone is worth it

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    arod_77 wrote:
    No, but it helps preserve at least some semblance of cultural suspicion about the government, and that alone is worth it
    I would lay money that the degree of "cultural suspicion about the government" is quite a bit lower among gun-owners than among non gun-owners.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2006
    Im' not interested in speculating in an area where there is no hard evidence, however lets see how much those gun-owners trust the government when it comes for their guns

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    arod_77 wrote:
    No, but it helps preserve at least some semblance of cultural suspicion about the government, and that alone is worth it
    I would lay money that the degree of "cultural suspicion about the government" is quite a bit lower among gun-owners than among non gun-owners.

    I'd also argue that having a well educated, well informed public does a hell of a lot more to encourage people to think critically about government and other forms of authority than owning a gun.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2006
    Yeah, but we can't expect people to actually think

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    arod_77 wrote:
    Yeah, but we can't expect people to actually think

    Learning is for the devil.

    Which is why those brave boys in our National Guard went and showed those devil worshipers at Kent State how much power education has in America.

    Incenjucar on
  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    While I lack hard evidence, using guns for 'self-defense' seems like the wrong idea.

    If you get mugged by two crack addicts, slinging bullets with them (assuming they are armed) will just increase the danger you are in. Wouldn't the better idea be to give them the money and live

    P10 on
    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Marx wrote:
    While I lack hard evidence, using guns for 'self-defense' seems like the wrong idea.

    If you get mugged by two crack addicts, slinging bullets with them (assuming they are armed) will just increase the danger you are in. Wouldn't the better idea be to give them the money and live

    If you actually know how to use a gun, rather than just buy it and assume that the bullets know what they are supposed to do, there's no 'slinging' involved.

    Besides that, unless they are also armed, one bullet is almost ALWAYS enough to stop any number of attackers.

    And money is not always going to be the be all and end all of someone's interests once they know they have some power over you, not to mention that said money may not be going to very good causes.

    Incenjucar on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2006
    Why does the stereotype american you see on sitcoms or in movies (I really don't know another kind, so feel free to correct me/call me a moron if this isn't the way many think) remain so stanchly pro-guns. They kill people.

    You don't need a gun to kill people.

    As much as I'm anti-gun ownership, the whole "they kill people" argument is a load of crap.

    ege02 on
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Marx wrote:
    While I lack hard evidence, using guns for 'self-defense' seems like the wrong idea.

    If you get mugged by two crack addicts, slinging bullets with them (assuming they are armed) will just increase the danger you are in. Wouldn't the better idea be to give them the money and live

    If you actually know how to use a gun, rather than just buy it and assume that the bullets know what they are supposed to do, there's no 'slinging' involved.
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Learning is for the devil.
    While I agree, if you know how to use a gun, you can defend yourself, but they have to actually know how to use a gun

    P10 on
    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • KMGorKMGor Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Do you really think the privately owned guns in America would make much difference at all in the theoretical event of a military coup in the USA?

    Why wouldn't it? The army having "bigger" or "better" guns and the presence of armor isn't a reason, as near as I can tell.

    KMGor on
    Iacobus wrote:
    Fatty wrote:
    American beer tastes like piss.
    Wait, that's an insult? I just figured Americans like drinking warm urine out of cans.
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Marx wrote:
    While I lack hard evidence, using guns for 'self-defense' seems like the wrong idea.

    If you get mugged by two crack addicts, slinging bullets with them (assuming they are armed) will just increase the danger you are in. Wouldn't the better idea be to give them the money and live

    If you actually know how to use a gun, rather than just buy it and assume that the bullets know what they are supposed to do, there's no 'slinging' involved.

    Besides that, unless they are also armed, one bullet is almost ALWAYS enough to stop any number of attackers.

    And money is not always going to be the be all and end all of someone's interests once they know they have some power over you, not to mention that said money may not be going to very good causes.
    Not to mention the higher the probability their potential mugging victim is armed, the lower the probability they'll carry out the mugging.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Marx wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Marx wrote:
    While I lack hard evidence, using guns for 'self-defense' seems like the wrong idea.

    If you get mugged by two crack addicts, slinging bullets with them (assuming they are armed) will just increase the danger you are in. Wouldn't the better idea be to give them the money and live

    If you actually know how to use a gun, rather than just buy it and assume that the bullets know what they are supposed to do, there's no 'slinging' involved.
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Learning is for the devil.
    While I agree, if you know how to use a gun, you can defend yourself, but they have to actually know how to use a gun

    Like with anything else involved in education, the ignorant make victims out of themselves, and the whole world is worse for it.

    People should know their history, know their science, know their psychology, know their bodies, know their world, and know how to defend the lot of it.

    Incenjucar on
  • CavilCavil Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Marx wrote:
    While I lack hard evidence, using guns for 'self-defense' seems like the wrong idea.

    If you get mugged by two crack addicts, slinging bullets with them (assuming they are armed) will just increase the danger you are in. Wouldn't the better idea be to give them the money and live

    If you actually know how to use a gun, rather than just buy it and assume that the bullets know what they are supposed to do, there's no 'slinging' involved.

    Besides that, unless they are also armed, one bullet is almost ALWAYS enough to stop any number of attackers.

    And money is not always going to be the be all and end all of someone's interests once they know they have some power over you, not to mention that said money may not be going to very good causes.
    Not to mention the higher the probability their potential mugging victim is armed, the lower the probability they'll carry out the mugging.

    Exactly. It's Mutually Assured Destruction for civilians.

    Cavil on
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Like with anything else involved in education, the ignorant make victims out of themselves, and the whole world is worse for it.

    People should know their history, know their science, know their psychology, know their bodies, know their world, and know how to defend the lot of it.
    Oh, if only that were the case for the masses!

    P10 on
    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Marx wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Like with anything else involved in education, the ignorant make victims out of themselves, and the whole world is worse for it.

    People should know their history, know their science, know their psychology, know their bodies, know their world, and know how to defend the lot of it.
    Oh, if only that were the case for the masses!

    I'm pretty sure the best defense is to shoot the masses.

    You know.

    Make a corpse fort.

    Incenjucar on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    Not to mention the higher the probability their potential mugging victim is armed, the lower the probability they'll carry out the mugging.
    Is this a scientific fact or something? Because we have a lot of guns in the US, and a lot of states have concealed carry laws, but we also have a high rate of muggings and an extremely high rate of gun deaths.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SpazSpaz Registered User
    edited December 2006
    If you were to have a gun loaded and ready at all times, wouldn't that be a major safety risk for children? I'm not saying they should be banned (although I think they should definitely be discouraged and people should be much more well educated about their use), but it seems hard to have it for self defense while still having sufficient restrictions to stop kids from fucking around.

    Spaz on
    graffitisig.gif
  • blizzard224blizzard224 Registered User
    edited December 2006
    ege02 wrote:
    Why does the stereotype american you see on sitcoms or in movies (I really don't know another kind, so feel free to correct me/call me a moron if this isn't the way many think) remain so stanchly pro-guns. They kill people.

    You don't need a gun to kill people.

    As much as I'm anti-gun ownership, the whole "they kill people" argument is a load of crap.

    Alright: You have an angry madman ( I hate the term but it's just easy to use here) with a gun and an angry madman with a knife. Who is more likely to kill someone?

    The answer is obvious. You may not need a gun to kill people but hell, it sure helps.

    blizzard224 on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Marx wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Like with anything else involved in education, the ignorant make victims out of themselves, and the whole world is worse for it.

    People should know their history, know their science, know their psychology, know their bodies, know their world, and know how to defend the lot of it.
    Oh, if only that were the case for the masses!

    A few days ago, I made a joking proposition to one of my friends that, to vote, an american citizen should have to be able to pass the AP U.S. History exam, to be administered in some yearly interval.

    Moridin on
    sig10008eq.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    ege02 wrote:
    Why does the stereotype american you see on sitcoms or in movies (I really don't know another kind, so feel free to correct me/call me a moron if this isn't the way many think) remain so stanchly pro-guns. They kill people.

    You don't need a gun to kill people.

    As much as I'm anti-gun ownership, the whole "they kill people" argument is a load of crap.

    Alright: You have an angry madman ( I hate the term but it's just easy to use here) with a gun and an angry madman with a knife. Who is more likely to kill someone?

    The answer is obvious. You may not need a gun to kill people but hell, it sure helps.
    Martin Bryant certainly wouldn't have been able to kill 30 people without a gun. Actually if he'd had to work a bolt or something he probably wouldn't have got so many either.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Saddam_I'm_addasSaddam_I'm_addas Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Selective Service would be much more difficult to enforce if wars were still fought with sticks and stones.

    Saddam_I'm_addas on
Sign In or Register to comment.