You’ll Never Guess What I just Bought
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=179262
Printed Date: 26 September 2025 at 11:20am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: You’ll Never Guess What I just Bought
Posted By: notXXscared
Subject: You’ll Never Guess What I just Bought
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 3:55pm
 The gov'ment's gonna take away are gunz, gotta stock up while we still can. ------------- 
Previously DYE PLAYA |
Replies:
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:06pm
|
... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:20pm
------------- I ♣ hippies. |
Linus wrote:Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:22pm
|
Thank you for posting this. I also hate nutcase rednecks with guns who don't understand politics. ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:31pm
Well considering Obama has stated that he wants the assault weapons ban back in effect, it's not far fetched to believe that there are going to be tighter firearms controls to go along with it... -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:31pm
How terrible... Next thing you know, he'll be taking away the right to defend your homes with grenade launchers. ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:34pm
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh 
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:42pm
if someone told you there wasnt going to be any more alcohol available after a certain date, wouldnt you want to stock up on it? or how about gas? or snowboards or whatever. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:45pm
|
Snowboards kill.
------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:46pm
If they were taking certain types off the liquor I might be disapointed slightly, but I wouldn't start screeching about my rights and filling my basement with it. Same for snowboards. Oh noez, cry more. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 4:50pm
Srsly  ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 5:41pm
Eville, they're Canadians, so you have to use Canadian speak--- Choop, what if they banned ALL Tim Horton's? Aside from going "What the hell, it's just TH", wouldn't you go to the nearest one and stock up on Timbits and coffee? -------------
|
Posted By: FROG MAN
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 5:42pm
|
lol...... yes ------------- <1 meg sig = bad> |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 6:24pm
|
silly Canadians, you'll be the first to fall when the zombies rise!!! OK Notxxscared, just how do you plan to keep that monstrosity fed? That 200 round can will be empty in a second. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:01pm
He's not banning ALL guns. So again, if he were closing SOME Tim Horton's I'd be slightly dissapointed, but again oh well. Not a worth being such a paranoid baby about. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:09pm
| well, you could either buy the guns you want now, or you could wait until they are banned and not have them and just cry about it when you could be out shooting it instead. so i dont see the harm in buying them now. worst case scenario for all the anti-gun hippies is it gets them off the street. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:13pm
|
Obama has too many other things to deal with (the economy). I don't think he is going to go after an assault weapons ban for some time. I bought the majority of my rifles during the Clinton reign of terror. One of them is an assault weapon. now ammunition on the other hand....
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Ford
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:21pm
|
Why are Canadians so interested in our politics ?
------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:43pm
| Whatever will our well-regulated militia do? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:47pm
|
I've never seen so many sanctimonious posts in one thread in quite some time. ------------- ? |
Posted By: AoSpades
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:55pm
|
why are you so interested in finding out why canadians are so interested in our politics? -------------  |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:56pm
Who's on first? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:57pm
Yes. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Ford
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:59pm
|
AHHHH WUT
-------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 7:59pm
|
and whats on second..
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: AoSpades
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 8:00pm
|
beat me to it ------------- |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 8:02pm
|
Idontknow is on third..
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 8:29pm
What constructive use could you possibly have for needing an assault rifle, as a civilian? ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 8:40pm
what makes an assault rifle so much worse than a regular rifle? is it the evil collapsible stock? the vile flash hider? Or could it be the heinous and malicious plastic pistol grip? maybe some other cosmetic feature? after all, they all still fire the exact same projectile at potentially the same velocity with the same accuracy. Quell your irrational fears child. Its a toy. its fun to play with. just like a fast car, or a nice bike. |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 8:42pm
So are fireworks, but there are bannings on them now in many states. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 8:47pm
Because we're constantly exposed to it. I'm ashamed to admit I am WAY more aware of this US election than I am of the Canadian one. I am completely out of touch of Canadian politics, but US stuff is on the news, in the papers, online all the time. |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 8:48pm
which doesnt make the bannings right. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 8:51pm
Like the one some gun supporters have, that the whole reason why citizens should be armed is to "keep the government in check?" |
Posted By: Mr.Awesome
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 8:57pm
|
quote/ what makes an assault rifle so much worse than a regular rifle? is it the evil collapsible stock? the vile flash hider? Or could it be the heinous and malicious plastic pistol grip? maybe some other cosmetic feature? after all, they all still fire the exact same projectile at potentially the same velocity with the same accuracy. Quell your irrational fears child. Its a toy. its fun to play with. just like a fast car, or a nice bike. assault rifle is worse cuz u can kill 3 times more people than jus a regular rifle |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:03pm
exactly like that one. mr awesome - the key there is before you have to reload, which only takes a couple of seconds. really no reason to ban them. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:09pm
I collect rifles, military rifles. It's a bit of history that I enjoy. It has nothing to do with killing but the tool that shaped some parts of history. It's what I enjoy. i am threatening no one nor do I plan or hope to shoot anyone, been there done that when i was a Marine, I can't say that I enjoyed doing that. My rifles and pistols are locked up with child safety locks, in a steel gun safe of which my wife and I have the only keys for. we enjoy taking them to the range and shooting them at targets, paper targets. I don't hunt adn I prefer to shoot competitive service rifle matches. A few times a year I shoot in what I call classic matches, shooters will use old military rifles, old Krags, Enfields, Nagants and Mausers. These are the rifles we prefer. We are not criminals. SOme shooters are doctors, lawyers, school teachers, carpenters, etc. We are every day people who enjoy collecting and shooting them. Not once have I heard any of my fellow collectors and shooters say "I hope there is a riot/civil disorder so I can shoot some one!", not ever. Besides..... It's cheaper than what I really, really want to collect. Tanks. Not model tanks, I shelves full of them on display in my home. If I could get a tank, preferably a Panther G, I would collect those instead. I think my wife would freak to wake up one morning and see an a German panzer in the flower garden. maybe not. it is what I enjoy, be that as it may. laugh, argue, whatever. I have that right and I enjoy it. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:12pm
|
Is Ceesman drunk or something? ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:15pm
not at all, bored in a hotel room on yet another training trip in Chester Va. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:18pm
|
I say that only because your last post was uncharacteristically mumbled, jumbled, and typoed. Had me confused. But hotel rooms will make you crazy too. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:21pm
Another WWII relic that I would absolutely love to have. No one posts their new addition to their tank arsenal, though, so I never get the chance to post it like I do the MG-42. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:23pm
I am holding 2 conversations one with the forum and the other with my wife via cell phone. hotel rooms make me a little stir crazy. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:27pm
Did you not get the memo? Here's the Konigstiger parked outside the parent's house on the GW Parkway. 
------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:31pm
Unfortunately, not everyone is like you though. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:31pm
You clearly don't read Free Republic. To clear this up, I own firearms. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:34pm
 Back at you Tallen! ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:39pm
O_O I'd be waiting in line at G.W. International on my way to D.C. right now if I didn't know that was actually in Belgium. I'd probably act like a too much of schoolgirl if I actually had the chance to be in/drive one to actually do anything. If I did manage to compose myself well enough, I think the sound of it would be the best part. OMG. EDIT: King Tiger > "Panzer" with a lisp. I would DESTROY you, homebrew. -------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:40pm
No sir, please enlighten me with a link! never meant to offend. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:47pm
You really were born about a decade too late Gatyr. Back when I was in college, the Ukraine, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, and all the other former Com-Bloc countries were selling off their old stocks of Soviet T-34 and KV-I tanks. Going price was down around $25K at the lowest and $45K at the highest. For the price of a nice Lexus...... Also, many states do not have laws refusing private citizens the ability to drive their tanks on normal roads. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: .636
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:48pm
Jagah bahms! ------------- |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 9:51pm
Are they still selling off their old stocks of BMP-2's?? T-72's? ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 10:00pm
Canada will sell you one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-5 For about 50K. Doesn't come with an engine though. ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 10:14pm
Probably. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were still selling off T-34s as well. It's the Russians, they'll sell you ANYTHING if you have cash. Oh, and btw, with the dawning of this thread, T&O now stands for "Tanks and mOsins" ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 10:26pm
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Glassjaw
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 10:53pm
Which obviously makes the banning of assault rifles perfectly acceptable. ------------- |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 11:00pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 11:23pm
|
Dear Canadias, As your constitution (to my knowledge, I know very little about your "country") doesn't specifically grant you the right to bear arms, and civilian ownership of firearms isn't as widespread as here in America, I can understand how this may seem like a foolish complaint to you. Americans, however, see this as a step (however small) toward taking away our right to bear arms entirely. Our constitution has legitimacy, to say that we support our constitution wholeheartedly, and see any motion to alter that constitution for what we feel to be the worse will rouse up anger. Unlike many constitutions, blood was spilled for ours, and we feel as though it's something we all stand behind. So that may explain why some people feel so strongly. With that said, I'm sure there are plenty of crazies and rednecks who just want their guns. I, however, could care less, I just want my handgun permit. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 11:50pm
|
Well, any new ban will have to be carefully worded. The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down a 32 year old handgun ban in D.C., and they specifically articulated their belief than firearms ownership is an individual right "A well regulate militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Yes, that's right, a Canadian who can rattle off your second amendment verbatim without using google. Stare in awe.) The peculiar phrasing of the second amendment was an issue that literally for decades the Surpeme Court was unwilling to rule on. This was the first Surpeme Court second amendment ruling in almost 70 years, and it was a solid win for gun rights. Unfortunately, gun ownership is tainted as an issue by strong interest from the borderline radical right wing crowd- Whale mentioned Free Republic earlier, one of the most despicable mires of right-wing whackjobs on the net. However the vast majority of gun owners should NOT be tarred by association with groups. As correctly pointed out earlier, most gun owners are simply sportsmen, or are law abiding citizens who are excercising their right to own the means to defend themselves and their property.
On another note- in response to the very original post, one of my friends actually has his Minigun course. I'm ridicuolously jealous of him. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: thejudge
Date Posted: 09 December 2008 at 11:55pm
|
Really the ban is not the best of ideas. It will not stop those that use assault rifles from getting them. It wont even make it harder. Who knows since I (a responsible person) would no longer be able to buy one legally it would add to the stock pile of illegal arms and add more available to those that want them for the wrong purposes. ------------- Stay low, run fast, and hope that paintball doesn't hit your... http://www.deltasquad.info/"> 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 12:18am
|
This conversation made me think it was a good time for this http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=carolyn+mccarthy&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501-s&fr2=tab-web&tnr=21&vid=000167607057 - link .
-------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 12:19am
Forgoing the obvious "home/self defence" issue, what about sport shooting? What about just for the hell of it? What about hunting? (There are some animals you can hunt with assault rifle calibers, even though I'd suggest a battle rifle for most game) What about target shooting? What about private practice if you are a National Guard or Police officer and want to practice in your own time, in your own way? Depending on how far you wanna go back, and which country you are in, how about to protect your country from tyrants? What constructive use do you have for a car that can go faster than 75mph? Fortunately not everyone who owns a gun is a criminal, no matter how the gun control people would like to paint it. |
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 12:23am
|
Mack, I lol'd. ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell" 
|
Posted By: .636
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 12:31am
Are you for serious? There are more guns for our population than in the USA. and thats only the guns the government has in their system. There are hundreds of thousands unregistered firearms We to are in a fight for rights. The liberal government wants to take power as a majority. Conservative party of Canada is trying to get Canadians private property rights to protect us from having property seized by the government but they need a majority to preform such task The liberal government has plans to remove private ownership of handguns and some semi auto rifles. Almost ten years ago a bill passed here called Bill-C68 which made us need licenses to own long guns and that they needed to be registered. Reason behind the registration was to "prevent crime" but its real reason was so that the government knows where all the guns are once they get around to banning them. ------------- |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 2:18am
Seriously. Why do gun control nuts always ask stupid and insipid questions? I wouldn't hate arguing gun-control so much if people would come up with valid questions. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 2:20am
|
Tallen, possibly because you're being trolled?
-------------
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 3:22am
Jesus H. Christ I wish I could form my thoughts as efficiently as Tallen. I have thoughts, I know what I want to say, but i never can seem to get them across to the opposing party. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 3:25am
Drink less before you post? -------------
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 3:33am
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 6:43am
Shhh... keep quiet. ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 1:50pm
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 1:53pm
Haha, yeah, damn liberals! |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 1:58pm
| I've found it's anyone who leans far to either side. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 2:00pm
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 3:05pm
Probably the same reason that some gun nuts have the moron "cold-dead-hands" mentality, or the cowboy crime-stopper mentality, or the FReep-tastic-waiting-on-jackboot-UN-thugs-to-take-mah-guns mentality. None of which makes any more sense than people who question why any guns are legal at all. Even the home-defense thing is hyped up more than it should be. Provided that you have a childless home and it is "acceptable" to keep a firearm within reach, there are very few situations where it will actually come in handy. Situations where you have enough time to get the gun, load the gun, and be ready to confront the attacker. And guess what, burglaries are much more frequent than robberies and home invasions. And firearms are one of the most frequently stolen things from a home if a burglary occurs. So your legally-purchased firearm is now being used to hold up a gas station. Awesome. Note, I understand that in those situations, situations where a firearm will be helpful, it is great to have one. No, I'm not against guns. Again, I own firearms, I am just not one of the delusional firearm owners. And for the love of God, can we stop the gun/car analogy? It doesn't even work. A car's design is for transportation. A gun's design, like it or not, is for killing/damaging things. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 3:41pm
Since this is a right we are discussing, perhaps I should have used an analogy concerning another right: Some news sources abuse their position by presenting one-sided reports based on their personal/institutional bias, present editorials as facts and, in some cases, even falsify background information/sources. Freedom of the press must be curtailed to stop these abuses. There are religions out there that are no more than thinly-veiled tax dodges and others that exist only to scam their membership. Furthermore, some religions preach dangerous practices, such as the use of illegal substances or forgoing mainstream medical treatment, that endanger members of their congregations. The right to worship as one pleases is being abused; this makes it a threat and it must be eliminated. The fact is that there will always be rights that are considered protected by some people that the majority will not see the need for. The bill of rights does not exist for the majority as their rights need no protection; it exists to protect the rights of the minorities from a tyranny of the majority. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 3:57pm
|
Not really, at all.
Let me put it this way to make it easier to digest. If you use a car correctly, by the instruction book, just as it was designed, you get to point A to point B. It is a transportation device. If you use a gun correctly, by the instruction book, just as it was designed, something dies/is destroyed. Now, it depends on if that thing is a person, a deer, or a target, the point still stands. That's why people view guns and gun safety/regulation differently. It is a flawed analogy, the car-to-gun thing. It borders on going full retard. Never go full retard. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:03pm
Perhaps, but you need to understand that the car/gun analogy intended to stress the damages of something that was NOT designed to destroy as being MORE destructive than something that IS when misused. This lends the analogy quite a bit of credibility. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:08pm
If that is the case, then it is even worse. Trying to argue that a car is more destructive than a gun during misuse is just plain wrong, not to mention that the line of misuse is far slanted. Still a bad analogy. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:13pm
Yeah, I'm going to disagree here, given the number of deaths at the hands of irresponsible drivers compared to those as a result of misused firearms. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:17pm
1) How many people use cars as compared to firearms on a regular basis? 2) What do you consider irresponsible vehicle use. 2.5) What do you consider irresponsible firearm use? |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:18pm
Please pull some statistics out of your ass for this. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:20pm
------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:22pm
Right. They are different. Which brings be to the key point. The analogy is flawed. |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:27pm
|
To me the car analogy is like saying that anything you can think of is more dangerous than guns Stairs, Donkeys, Walnuts they have all killed people . The sad fact is that people can't be trusted. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:28pm
/facepalm. Really? If you discount the deaths by firearms that come at the hands of police officers seeking to stop violent crimes and such, there is no difference and the analogy is credible. Use by law enforcement is NOT 'misuse' When I drive a car, my objective is "Get to target destination safely" when I shoot a gun, my objective is remarkable similar: "Hit the target and do it safely" A car is NEVER intended to kill anyone, yet they do with much, much more frequency than firearms do, even when you DO count the INTENDED deaths at the hands of law enforcement or military personnel. You're reaching. I could have said: "Any form of use outside of intended purpose which causes injury or death" as an answer to BOTH questions. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:36pm
Let me try and make this easier to digest once more, because it seems to me missing. I am not arguing for or against gun control anything right now. I am just pointing out that the car to gun analogy is dumb. I know police use of a gun is not misuse. That is the point. You have to specify, because there are professions and jobs out there who use the gun as it was intended. To kill. The car, on the other hand, was not intended to kill. 1) And what happens to that target? It is destroyed/hit/whatever you like. The goal, the whole point, is destruction. That is what makes cars and guns different. That is what makes the analogy flawed. 2) I'll ask for the numbers again. How often are cars used daily as compared to firearms. Flawed thought process. 3) You could have, except the car was not designed to cause injury and death. The gun, ultimately, was. |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:41pm
|
Death's in car accidents are unfortunate by product of the cars important completely peaceful function. Death's in shootings are a result of the gun doing exactly what it was designed for. In no shooting is a gun misused, simply used. Giving the nasty men the ability to obtain these guns with such ease is just irresponsible and no wrinkly piece of paper from the 1700's will make it any less so. I reckon the right to bear arms has cost more lives than it's saved in recent history. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:42pm
|
So you're telling me that the number of deaths due to automobile accidents are inconsequential (Despite the probable higher ratio of accidents per usage)since: A: Care are used more frequently than guns B: The car isn't designed to kill anyone. Guns however are more dangerous (despite the lower accidents per usage ratio) because: A: Guns are designed to destroy. Correct me if I'm wrong before I continue. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:42pm
|
Let me add a bonus point. I want to work with something here.
Let's just say, Reb, that the car to gun analogy is correct and not an obvious example of flawed logic. I want you to set up the analogy how you would in an argument. I will set the scene. You are arguing some guy in favor of very strict gun control, and you pull out the ol' car-to-guns analogy. I'm not going to put words in your mouth, so I want you to state it as you would normally: |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:46pm
None of that is what I am trying to say. At all. I'm not trying to say that cars, nor guns, are more dangerous. I am trying to say they are not comparable to one another within the boundaries of rational argument. Their uses/function/design and the mindset we have about them is completely different. |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:48pm
|
OK then remove cars from the streets. Ban the trucks that deliver food to the cities, Ambulances, the nation would come to a standstill. Cars are a necessary threat. Guns however serve no greater function (police and military excluded). and as such are not comparable |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 4:59pm
|
First, I need to say that the car/gun analogy isn't the be all end all of the gun control argument. Secondly, I'll take the bait. My use of the analogy would be along the lines of: "Campaigning for strict gun control based on accidental death or injury statistics is flimsy at best since when you take into account the number of deaths in a car vs deaths by a gun- you're more likely to die in a traffic accident than you are to get shot." Again, notice that this analogy doesn't fight against every facet of the gun control argument, only when you're talking about accidental deaths. Its a pretty concrete argument when used in the right context. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 5:01pm
Absolutely, 100% wrong. I use my rifle to shoot at targets. If something goes wrong and I put a round through a friend's head, you're telling me that's not misuse? ------------- ? |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 5:01pm
Really? It would come to a standstill? Trains carry more goods than trucks on the roads here in the US. Aircraft transport quite a bit as well. Removing ambulances from the roads would not fit your analogy as they are used by the government, the same way that guns are used by the government. Public transit is also a government run system and would be able to move people to and from work. The only thing that would happen is an increase in population density of major cities and the need for more spur lines to get food from farms to the cities where the markets are located. Oh, and as for the right to bear arms not being useful. It helped us secede from the UK, you might want to take a look at the history of your own country's history to see how the rights of civilians to bear arms were infringed and made secession next to impossible. The English refused the right of weapons ownership to the Scots before they revolted under the leadership of Robert the Bruce. What would have happened if the Scots had simply complied? You'd have no national or cultural identity at this point. You'd just be Tennant's swilling English with bad accents. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 5:07pm
1) Understood. It's just one of those things that doesn't really work. If anything, I am trying to help you. Consider this argument sharpening. 2) I have a few questions, the first goes back to numbers. I don't think you can really compare, usefully, number of people who die in car accidents to gun accidents. It is a numbers game, really. More people use cars. 2.5) There is another striking flaw in the analogy, that I have not touched on yet. It is that there are TONS of regulations dealing with automobiles. Everything from what you can/cannot do while driving, to safety restraints, to construction regulation, to operational procedures, to design approval, etc. All of these things are designed to keep death rates down and keep people safe. Do people still die? Of course, but is the number of deaths lower because of the regulations put in place? This is another reason the two don't work together in analogy. The governmental regulations save people in cars quite often. What does that say about guns? Again, I am not arguing in favor of gun control at all. I am arguing against a worn-out and useless analogy. |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 5:11pm
Remeber we're talking about the real world not a hypothetical one in which cars never existed. The infastrucure isn't there to deal with that.
Thats negligence. |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 5:17pm
|
Well. Point is Obama isn't stealing your guns. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 5:19pm
Wow really? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 5:20pm
...lol ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 5:20pm
|
And I see where you're coming from. I fully understand this this exchange isn't about 'gun control' at all, but the use of common analogy. In its simplest form, I still believe that it's got some merit to it when used in the right context. I guess it all boils down to the wording you use to make the point. I CAN see where you're coming from when you break it down to numbers. however.....I just had a random thought jump into my head. Since I failed mathematics a few times, let me know if this makes sense or I'm just being an idiot. Since people use cars more often, the probability of being killed in one or by one is exponentially higher than the probability of being killed by a gun, since their usage is much lower. What I mean to say is (in terms of accidental deaths, nothing more, nothing less) that cars are more dangerous, based on the fact that since we run into so many more cars than guns EVERY DAY. I like these discussions. ------------- ? |
Posted By: AoSpades
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 5:24pm
|
best one I've seen in a while next to Talons ------------- |