Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 4 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 102
  1. #76
    Legend
    F34R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    PSN ID
    F34RTEHR34PER
    Posts
    40,118
    Rep Power
    244
    Points
    146,331 (0 Banked)
    Items BullySteamGran Turismo 5LiverpoolAppleJoker (limited ICON)Naughty DogMaster ChiefAssassins Creed EzioGears of WarHeavy RainDiablo III
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasombra View Post
    @Yuuichi: The US has one of the biggest military's in the world so you could easily have a solider on every block in some of the most dangerous neighbourhoods in the country. They are already being paid so I am sure they would rather be on patrol in Los Angeles or New York than Iraq.

    @Matrix 2: Why does my post not seem like I thought about it? Of course you don`t live in an authoritarian country, but the point I was trying to make is what is more important, guns or safety? Reducing crime to insignificant levels is easy, so, so easy. But that requires living under a government with rules in place that cares more about safety than doing anything you please.

    As to what I would do if confronted by a criminal, I am assuming you mean if someone tried to break into my house? Under that situation I would call the cops and then do nothing. Why would I provoke him or her? If I let them just take what they want to steal they are less likely to hurt me. It is why cashiers are trained to just give the money in a cash register and not be a hero.

    @Vulgotha: No, I have been lucky and have not been in a life threatening event like a break-in or anything of the sort.

    @FEAR: Why didn`t you just kill him? Why not take it to the next logical step and get rid of a criminal off the streets permanently without clogging up the health care and legal system?


    A lot of what is said with the anti-gun control side is `what if`, `what if`, `what if`. The sad fact is if a person has the intentions to kill you then you having a gun is not going to save you. That person is going to kill you, or seriously mess you up if they fail. `What if someone breaks into your house?` Well, I guessed I`ll take that risk. `What if someone is going to rape you/your whoever` I guess I`ll have to take the chance. `What if someone is going to kidnap your child or whoever` I guess I`m an easy target.

    But why not take it to the next logical step. Why is the `home` the danger zone. Why is it the home anyone only talks about. How many people with a gun carry it in full view EVERYWHERE? (Since I heard that it is legal to do so in the US). I mean, if I am going to get raped, robbed, kidnapped, or murdered in my home, why is it less likely to do so anywhere else? If everyone is carrying an AK in full view everywhere then everyone knows not to mess with anyone.
    Goodness. I dunno.. I can't possibly see myself just letting people take from me. Might as well just put a sign out on my lawn. Why not kill him? Is the alternative to killing him, just letting him take what he wants? He'll return ya know...
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasombra View Post
    @Reasonable Doubt: Why are not all the cashiers who are robbed and don`t have a gun not dead? Why? Why don`t they have a mudd hole stomped in their face?

    Why have I not been raped or murdered yet? This is a serious question. I have no gun, not even a BB Gun, and where are the UZI/Shotgun/Knife/Butcher Blade/Sword/Anything carrying criminals to knock down my door. This entire debate is based solely on `what if` and will always be based on `what if` You choose to believe that eventually someone is going to try and mess you up in some way. I choose to believe that no one is going to mess me up in some way. Owning a gun for the purpose of self-defence is solely about those two choices. I have chosen to live my life without a gun, have lived in 3 different countries, and have survived so far.

    @Vulgotha: I place no faith in anything, simply trying to point out alternate ways of safety without needing a gun, or logical leaps where pro-guns for everyone fail to take into account or want to go in that direction.
    Cashiers don't have anything to protect themselves. That's why they give the cash up. That's why you'd give whatever up if someone were stealing from you. Cause you don't have any way to protect yourself.

    While things haven't happened to you, it happens to people every single day. Look at the most gun controlled city in the US; Chicago. It has the highest murder rate as well. Go figure.




  2. #77
    Master Poster
    Beast of Bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Blighttown
    PSN ID
    Azrael666
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,493
    Rep Power
    77
    Points
    12,216 (0 Banked)
    Items DoomPlayStationDiablo IIIBlizzardDemons Souls CoverDark Souls Cover
    All i can say is if a government can't trust it's people with guns the people can't trust the government either.

    That's a problem that's been bugging me here in germany for years.
    Even the people themself seem to think that everyone else is an idiot and can't handle a gun responsibly

    ...we're stuck with "hoping for the best" or avoiding "dangerous" places like subwaystations at night.

    Rep for fear for handling the situation like a pro, i probably would've freaked out and emptied my clip in his ass

  3. #78
    Miqo'te Bard
    Yuuichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    8,080
    Rep Power
    76
    Points
    16,185 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleProtect yourselfFull Metal AlchemistFangDark Souls CoverDemons Souls CoverBattlefield 3Title StyleUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasombra View Post
    @Yuuichi: The US has one of the biggest military's in the world so you could easily have a solider on every block in some of the most dangerous neighbourhoods in the country. They are already being paid so I am sure they would rather be on patrol in Los Angeles or New York than Iraq.
    .
    Military has little to no power unless Martial law(the real martial law not state of emergecny) is declared. That would take to many people away from the military.
    I have twitter to https://twitter.com/GamerYuichi , Also started youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMu7yRGCz8QrTyxaNVR3Tqw I don't always twitch, but when I can you can find my noobness http://www.twitch.tv/yuichimccry,




  4. #79
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,752
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    81,683 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Morganator View Post
    It's not the opinion that bothers me but acting on them to push for gun bans.
    I'm failing to see a real difference here. What you're doing is stating that people are allowed to have opinions, but they can't act on them. If that's the case, they may as well not have the opinion at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morganator View Post
    They're entitled to their opinion until they infringe on my rights. Someone who pushes to remove that right from others is the worst kind of person.
    For someone with an apparent love for rights and freedoms, you seem to be rather one-sided about who truly deserves them.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  5. #80
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,442
    Rep Power
    102
    Points
    1,988 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapture View Post
    I'm failing to see a real difference here. What you're doing is stating that people are allowed to have opinions, but they can't act on them. If that's the case, they may as well not have the opinion at all.

    For someone with an apparent love for rights and freedoms, you seem to be rather one-sided about who truly deserves them.
    When it comes to rights, you have to be selfish. I'm protecting myself from those who strip me of the right to protect myself. I stand by what I said though I probably should word it better.

    You have the right to do whatever you so please up and until you infringe upon my rights.

  6. Likes Kwes likes this post
  7. #81
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    24
    Posts
    15,953
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    108,860 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Lasombra, I've provided evidence which stipulates that "Trained professionals" (Police) kill more innocent bystanders than people using firearms to defend themselves.

    Does this not mean anything?


  8. #82
    Elite Member
    reasonable_doubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Power
    67
    Points
    7,902 (0 Banked)
    disclaimer: got the scoop/news from a friend

    Obama picks felon as CT gun control advocacy 'character witness'

    CT Carry of Connecticut, a gun rights group, finds that one of the Obama administration's photo-op parents of children who died at the Sandy Hook School is somewhat more familiar with portrait photos that include a set of numbers directly below his full facial and side profile images.

    Sitting next to Gabby Giffords and the president at a White House photo event was Neil Heslin, the father of a boy shot at Newtown, Connecticut. Heslin was clearly advocating for much stricter gun control laws, yet Richard Burgess, President of CT Carry, has a possible explanation in a press release:
    A felon with a long rap sheet of fraud, substance abuse and reckless behavior is the poster boy for background checks and gun bans. But not in the way he thinks he is...
    All of which means that Neil Heslin is not allowed per State and Federal law to purchase, own or possess any firearms. So often we find that the strongest critics of the right to bear arms are those people who cannot be trusted with firearms themselves.
    In fact, despite multiple convictions for drunk driving and losing his license, Mr. Heslin continued to drive and was eventually charged with driving under suspension.
    Mr. Heslin is living proof that the criminals we need to be concerned with do not follow permitting laws and that people who so callously risk other people's lives continue to do so without regard for the laws.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...r_witness.html

    LMAO these clown don't even background check their own poster boy, but they expect everyone to think they will do their jobs in regards to universal background check? GTFO outta here! A freaking felon want people to be limit in term of self defense, he care sooooo much for his kid ** oh wait, mother$#@! didn't even pay child support.

    LOL he got his license suspended(DUI) but continue to drive...yet think criminals will obey the laws. What the flying $#@!.

  9. #83
    Legend
    F34R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    PSN ID
    F34RTEHR34PER
    Posts
    40,118
    Rep Power
    244
    Points
    146,331 (0 Banked)
    Items BullySteamGran Turismo 5LiverpoolAppleJoker (limited ICON)Naughty DogMaster ChiefAssassins Creed EzioGears of WarHeavy RainDiablo III
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Obama is the clown, and that says something about those who support him.




  10. Likes Kwes likes this post
  11. #84
    Unbound Mercenary
    Kwes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    16,250
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    480,359 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by F34R View Post
    Obama is the clown, and that says something about those who support him.
    This. Sums up my whole opinion on that guy.
    Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.




  12. #85
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,776
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    61,799 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    You voted the other guy then?

  13. #86
    Miqo'te Bard
    Yuuichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    8,080
    Rep Power
    76
    Points
    16,185 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleProtect yourselfFull Metal AlchemistFangDark Souls CoverDemons Souls CoverBattlefield 3Title StyleUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    You voted the other guy then?
    which one, there was so many people on the ballot
    I have twitter to https://twitter.com/GamerYuichi , Also started youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMu7yRGCz8QrTyxaNVR3Tqw I don't always twitch, but when I can you can find my noobness http://www.twitch.tv/yuichimccry,




  14. #87
    Unbound Mercenary
    Kwes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    16,250
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    480,359 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    You voted the other guy then?
    Yes.
    Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.




  15. #88
    PSU Reviews Editor, Hit Series Creator
    Lasombra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    PSN ID
    MelegantPrime
    Posts
    1,234
    Rep Power
    20
    Points
    20,526 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulgotha View Post
    Lasombra, I've provided evidence which stipulates that "Trained professionals" (Police) kill more innocent bystanders than people using firearms to defend themselves.

    Does this not mean anything?
    Its like I said before it is all a `what if` situation. But, like your own article said cops are trained to kill while civilians are trained not to. Cops are trained to shoot until the suspect goes down, even if that means shooting an entire clip into them and also have the accuracy to go centre-mass or at least not miss as often as untrained civilians. So of course Cops are going to kill more in shooting than civilians.

    Canada has guns. Why are Canadians not as fearful as Americans? Why can we leave our doors unlocked? Why do we not go out in droves to buy semi-autos or pistols or anything? We have crime. We have the same problems as America. What is it about America that makes you`re country afraid of its own shadow while Canada is not? Shouldn`t Canada be the most armed nation in the world considering how many Americans have guns? You all could march up north and kill us all, it is not like there are many armed people at our border check points.

    People have said they have guns so they can be protected from criminals and The Man, but I only believe it to be half-true. I think Americans could care less about safety. If you want safety then live under martial law with the military in the streets. I`d like to see a lone criminal or even a crime syndicate try and do anything with tanks in the streets and armed soldiers everywhere. No, America, thanks to its history and rhetoric propaganda that is said any time the word freedom is mentioned, is all about distrusting The Man, the government. With so many people with guns I don`t see why you haven`t blown each other apart in another civil war to be honest. So many people hate and/or distrust the government why not take up arms? So many Americans love quoting long dead founders from the American Revolution like Franklin and his `Freedom over Security` quote. Talking the talk gets boring. Lets see some walking the walk, America. People hate Obama, fine. Overthrow him. People hated Bush, they should have overthrew him. If the government is so corrupt and inept, overthrow it.

    Nope, instead it is like being the fat girl on a diet who orders a super-sized meal at McDonalds but gets diet soda because she is on a `diet`. `The government will take my guns from my cold dead hands.` Sorry, but the government could care less you have a gun, all they want to do if make sure those who have guns are not criminals. Enact some strong, meaningful, gun laws and the common man can still get a gun and not have to worry about not having a gun to blow the face off a criminal. But conversely it would be harder for criminal elements to get them. Of course criminals are going to get guns, that is obvious. But at least the ways are underground and easier to bust than a legal gun shop selling glocks to anyone who walks into the store.

  16. #89
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    24
    Posts
    15,953
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    108,860 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasombra View Post
    Its like I said before it is all a `what if` situation. But, like your own article said cops are trained to kill while civilians are trained not to. Cops are trained to shoot until the suspect goes down, even if that means shooting an entire mag into them and also have the accuracy to go centre-mass or at least not miss as often as untrained civilians. So of course Cops are going to kill more in shooting than civilians.
    The underlined conclusion is not supported by the preceding statement lol. If they have the 'accuracy' to make center mass shots then there's no real reason why there would be so many collateral casualties. Your words.

    If your statement is true then how do these so-called "untrained civilians" kill less people (non criminals) by accident than the police?

    The answer is obvious: People in situations where crimes are being perpetrated against them are rarely in a situation where their attacker may be confused for someone else. Often the attacker is in a very close proximity to the victim in the first place (mugging, rape, break in, etc) so the odds of missing are slim and the odds of accidentally hurting others slimmer still.

    Police are not around to protect you personally. They can't. They cannot respond in a manner fast enough to end the attack and they're not in your shoes and privy to all of the information necessary to make a more confident snap judgment call.

    Canada has guns. Why are Canadians not as fearful as Americans? Why can we leave our doors unlocked? Why do we not go out in droves to buy semi-autos or pistols or anything? We have crime. We have the same problems as America. What is it about America that makes you`re country afraid of its own shadow while Canada is not? Shouldn`t Canada be the most armed nation in the world considering how many Americans have guns? You all could march up north and kill us all, it is not like there are many armed people at our border check points.
    Canadian geography, population and population density are very different than America. You have a population of 33,476,688 and a density of 3.41/km^2, or 3.5 people per square kilometer.

    The United, on the other hand has a population of 315,828,000 and a population density of 34.2/km^2 or 34 people per square kilometer. We literally have almost 10x as many people and are 10x more packed together.

    That's a pretty big difference. Scratch that- a huge difference.

    You most certainly do not have the same problems we do. You are similar (more or less) from a cultural perspective, we share borders with each other and you speak English. After that the similarities start to dwindle.

    People have said they have guns so they can be protected from criminals and The Man, but I only believe it to be half-true. I think Americans could care less about safety. If you want safety then live under martial law with the military in the streets. I`d like to see a lone criminal or even a crime syndicate try and do anything with tanks in the streets and armed soldiers everywhere. No, America, thanks to its history and rhetoric propaganda that is said any time the word freedom is mentioned, is all about distrusting The Man, the government. With so many people with guns I don`t see why you haven`t blown each other apart in another civil war to be honest. So many people hate and/or distrust the government why not take up arms? So many Americans love quoting long dead founders from the American Revolution like Franklin and his `Freedom over Security` quote. Talking the talk gets boring. Lets see some walking the walk, America. People hate Obama, fine. Overthrow him. People hated Bush, they should have overthrew him. If the government is so corrupt and inept, overthrow it.
    Yes, conservatives\traditionalists\Libertarian types maintain a distrust of government and are ardent about their right to bear arms and may voice their willingness to secede\go to war with the US Federal government. This becomes more and more the case the farther you get to and past the Dixon line.

    But a huge portion, if not majority, of the population is not like this. (Neo)Progressives\liberals are certainly not "anti government" and are generally more trusting of it.

    Loosely, this makes up the paradigm of "Right" vs "Left" although many Republicans\Neo-conservatives employ hero worship of the military-caste and are buddy\buddy with certain aspects of Government. Conversely, the left is distrustful and critical of (normally, anyway) of the military.

    I view both as walking contradictions, but that's just me.

    Btw, there was a time when we "Walked the walk and stopped talking" - US Civil War.

    tdlr; Union won, states rights got raped and the federal government's power exploded. But hey, slavery was abolished so yay. I'm divided on the issue of the Civil War, but that's a talk for another time.


    Nope, instead it is like being the fat girl on a diet who orders a super-sized meal at McDonalds but gets diet soda because she is on a `diet`. `The government will take my guns from my cold dead hands.` Sorry, but the government could care less you have a gun, all they want to do if make sure those who have guns are not criminals. Enact some strong, meaningful, gun laws and the common man can still get a gun and not have to worry about not having a gun to blow the face off a criminal. But conversely it would be harder for criminal elements to get them. Of course criminals are going to get guns, that is obvious. But at least the ways are underground and easier to bust than a legal gun shop selling glocks to anyone who walks into the store.
    The government cares a great $#@!ing deal about the guns in our hands. If this weren't true than why does the ATF exist and why is it endowed with exorbitant powers? Why are progressives (remember, government trusters) so adamant to remove weapons from society through legal means?

    This is contradictory. Neo-progressivism is certainly interested in removing firearms from society and they exert this desire through the government apparatus.

    And the bolded part is just some pipedream fantasy statement entertained by leftists, such as yourself, all the time. Were it so easy things would be simpler- but it isn't.

    Indulge me. What "common man, strong and meaningful gun laws" would accomplish these aims? Surely you must have some ideas here given your outspoken disposition.



    Last edited by Vulgotha; 05-13-2013 at 03:59.


  17. Likes Ezekiel likes this post
  18. #90
    Apprentice

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    225
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    4,276 (0 Banked)
    about the pop density in canada. yes we have a large country , but the people live in cities with a lot of empty space in between. the greater toronto area has about 1\6 of the population in it for example.
    i love couch co op

  19. #91
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    24
    Posts
    15,953
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    108,860 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by bill the noon View Post
    about the pop density in canada. yes we have a large country , but the people live in cities with a lot of empty space in between. the greater toronto area has about 1\6 of the population in it for example.
    My point stands. You have a net population density 1/10th of ours with a population that is 1/10th of ours.

    You yourself just stated that the layout of your country geography is very different than in the USA- that's my point. Your country is not very much like ours at all, we do not have 'similar' problems.
    Last edited by Vulgotha; 05-13-2013 at 04:31.


  20. #92
    PSU Reviews Editor, Hit Series Creator
    Lasombra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    PSN ID
    MelegantPrime
    Posts
    1,234
    Rep Power
    20
    Points
    20,526 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulgotha View Post
    The underlined conclusion is not supported by the preceding statement lol. If they have the 'accuracy' to make center mass shots then there's no real reason why there would be so many collateral casualties. Your words.

    If your statement is true then how do these so-called "untrained civilians" kill less people (non criminals) by accident than the police?

    The answer is obvious: People in situations where crimes are being perpetrated against them are rarely in a situation where their attacker may be confused for someone else. Often the attacker is in a very close proximity to the victim in the first place (mugging, rape, break in, etc) so the odds of missing are slim and the odds of accidentally hurting others slimmer still.

    Police are not around to protect you personally. They can't. They cannot respond in a manner fast enough to end the attack and they're not in your shoes and privy to all of the information necessary to make a more confident snap judgment call.



    Canadian geography, population and population density are very different than America. You have a population of 33,476,688 and a density of 3.41/km^2, or 3.5 people per square kilometer.

    The United, on the other hand has a population of 315,828,000 and a population density of 34.2/km^2 or 34 people per square kilometer. We literally have almost 10x as many people and are 10x more packed together.

    That's a pretty big difference. Scratch that- a huge difference.

    You most certainly do not have the same problems we do. You are similar (more or less) from a cultural perspective, we share borders with each other and you speak English. After that the similarities start to dwindle.



    Yes, conservatives\traditionalists\Libertarian types maintain a distrust of government and are ardent about their right to bear arms and may voice their willingness to secede\go to war with the US Federal government. This becomes more and more the case the farther you get to and past the Dixon line.

    But a huge portion, if not majority, of the population is not like this. (Neo)Progressives\liberals are certainly not "anti government" and are generally more trusting of it.

    Loosely, this makes up the paradigm of "Right" vs "Left" although many Republicans\Neo-conservatives employ hero worship of the military-caste and are buddy\buddy with certain aspects of Government. Conversely, the left is distrustful and critical of (normally, anyway) of the military.

    I view both as walking contradictions, but that's just me.

    Btw, there was a time when we "Walked the walk and stopped talking" - US Civil War.

    tdlr; Union won, states rights got raped and the federal government's power exploded. But hey, slavery was abolished so yay. I'm divided on the issue of the Civil War, but that's a talk for another time.




    The government cares a great $#@!ing deal about the guns in our hands. If this weren't true than why does the ATF exist and why is it endowed with exorbitant powers? Why are progressives (remember, government trusters) so adamant to remove weapons from society through legal means?

    This is contradictory. Neo-progressivism is certainly interested in removing firearms from society and they exert this desire through the government apparatus.

    And the bolded part is just some pipedream fantasy statement entertained by leftists, such as yourself, all the time. Were it so easy things would be simpler- but it isn't.

    Indulge me. What "common man, strong and meaningful gun laws" would accomplish these aims? Surely you must have some ideas here given your outspoken disposition.



    Just because I choose to debate on the side of pro-gun does not make me a leftist, nor does that have any relevance what my political disposition is. My politics are my own. To call me a leftist is silly and does nothing but derail this debate with silly finger pointing. Did I call you a rightist? Nope. Do I care? Nope. Also, you forgot to bold the part after that bolded section where I say there are obvious problems with what I said. If you are going to stoop to such tactics as to insult me, which is obviously what calling me a leftist was intended when you don`t personally know my politics, I`ll bid you ado and stop spending time on this subject.

  21. #93
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    24
    Posts
    15,953
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    108,860 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasombra View Post
    Just because I choose to debate on the side of pro-gun does not make me a leftist, nor does that have any relevance what my political disposition is. My politics are my own. To call me a leftist is silly and does nothing but derail this debate with silly finger pointing. Did I call you a rightist? Nope. Do I care? Nope. Also, you forgot to bold the part after that bolded section where I say there are obvious problems with what I said. If you are going to stoop to such tactics as to insult me, which is obviously what calling me a leftist was intended when you don`t personally know my politics, I`ll bid you ado and stop spending time on this subject.
    I don't grasp your accusations, I did not perpetrate ad hominem against you. Your argument is, by all accounts, typical of leftist\neo-progressive individuals at least in the American sense. I didn't intend that as a slur anymore than I did when I said "conservatives\traditionalists\libertarian types". If you're done with a debate than just say so, don't eject by attempting to depict yourself as a victim of unfair harassment.

    I couldn't care less what political ideology you may personally identify with. But your argument certainly falls under the aforementioned camp(s).

    Besides, I'm not entirely sure that leftist in an American context is applicable to you given that you are a Canadian.

    Finally, if you have a problem with my tone than I apologize- but look very closely at yours before becoming angry. As a writer and editor especially I think you knew how you were coming across when you started to describe Americans.

    So, I'm sorry if I appeared to "stoop so low as to insult you" but it wasn't the case. My feathers are certainly ruffled at this accusation, however.
    Last edited by Vulgotha; 05-13-2013 at 05:28.


  22. #94
    PSU Reviews Editor, Hit Series Creator
    Lasombra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nagoya, Japan
    PSN ID
    MelegantPrime
    Posts
    1,234
    Rep Power
    20
    Points
    20,526 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulgotha View Post
    I don't grasp your accusations, I did not perpetrate ad hominem against you. Your argument is, by all accounts, typical of leftist\neo-progressive individuals at least in the American sense. I didn't intend that as a slur anymore than I did when I said "conservatives\traditionalists\libertarian types". If you're done with a debate than just say so, don't eject by attempting to depict yourself as a victim of unfair harassment.

    I couldn't care less what political ideology you may personally identify with. But your argument certainly falls under the aforementioned camp(s).

    Besides, I'm not entirely sure that leftist in an American context is applicable to you given that you are a Canadian.

    Finally, if you have a problem with my tone than I apologize- but look very closely at yours before becoming angry. As a writer and editor especially I think you knew how you were coming across when you started to describe Americans.

    So, I'm sorry if I appeared to "stoop so low as to insult you" but it wasn't the case. My feathers are certainly ruffled at this accusation, however.
    It became an accusation when you had to make a point of calling me, personally, something. It is different than saying `Leftists think X` or `Rightists think X` or even using words `you` in the abstract sense of meaning `people`. Saying `leftist, such as yourself,` is a cheap tactic to just derail the whole thing and go after my politics rather than the words I`m saying. Disagree with what I say and that is fine, that is great, but say things in the abstract sense until I specifically say what my politics are please, as I can`t stand the typical mainstream debate tactic style of saying `You`re a X, so that is how you would think`. We`re both ruffled, Even Steven, lets move on to the next round. Fair, Hand Shake?

    As a disclaimer, I am only debating from the Pro-Gun control side because that has the least people adamantly supporting it in this thread. If it were the reverse I`d be debating it from the Anti-Gun control side, which is how I handle any debate for any topic.

  23. #95
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    24
    Posts
    15,953
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    108,860 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasombra View Post
    It became an accusation when you had to make a point of calling me, personally, something. It is different than saying `Leftists think X` or `Rightists think X` or even using words `you` in the abstract sense of meaning `people`. Saying `leftist, such as yourself,` is a cheap tactic to just derail the whole thing and go after my politics rather than the words I`m saying. Disagree with what I say and that is fine, that is great, but say things in the abstract sense until I specifically say what my politics are please. We`re both ruffled, Even Steven, lets move on to the next round. Fair?

    As a disclaimer, I am only debating from the Pro-Gun control side because that has the least people adamantly supporting it in this thread. If it were the reverse I`d be debating it from the Anti-Gun control side, which is how I handle any debate for any topic.
    I reject your assertion, sorry. I don't think I'm guilty of anything and I think this kind of reaction is a bit extreme. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions and attempting to keep your true political affiliation(s) anonymous, but I will not revise my posting habits to ingratiate myself with you. I don't mean this response as a personal affront either.

    You're upset because you're being contrarian (not damning you for it) and are offended that I colored your arguments as being personal as opposed to simply being theoretical\academic. Perhaps I was wrong when I labelled you "leftist", perhaps not. But I won't apologize for an off hand (mis)categorization. It didn't derail anything and I never deviated from my core argument when I said the word, did I?

    If you stated that you were only taking the pro-gun control side for the sake of argument, before this post, and I happened to miss it then I'm sorry.

    But this isn't a big deal.

    If anything you've just derailed the conversation by turning an off hand remark into a mountain from an ant hill.

    Edit: Ok, let's just take a step back and forget I said "leftist". I really don't think this is worth the head ache so let's just move on like nothing happened as you originally said. That's fair.

    re-edit: I read over the thread and, correct me if I'm wrong, you never said that you were playing devil's advocate\just taking the weaker side. Further, you consistently interjected your own opinion ("I", "myself", so on) and never made it clear that this wasn't what you really felt.

    I'm just pointing this out to you so you can understand why I connected the dots with you being a "leftist". Keep in mind, I never railed at you for being it or attempted to state your argument was worthless or something because of it.

    "I never got the whole`If we don`t have guns then we won`t be able to prevent crime` argument. I never had to worry about my life being snuffed out or getting robbed because I don`t have a gun in Canada. Vigilantism is a crime, technically, so how does me having a gun keep crime down? If a criminal is going to shoot someone anyways, as has been inferenced by some of the pro-gun arguments, me having a gun isn`t going to stop anything. All it means is him, me, both of us, or more people are going to go down shooting in a blaze of glory."


    All of your posts in this thread are like this. You never made it clear to anyone that this isn't "you" speaking to "us".

    So, I plead your patience here, given all of the above I do not think in all fairness your reaction towards me was warranted. I'm just saying.

    I don't want this to cause a rift between us because you are very eager to talk openly about these sorts of subjects and I respect that. This is a very personal issue to me and to many people in this thread, especially in light of the bombings and shootings (whether one leans "right" or "left"). This is an emotionally charged thread.

    I just feel there has been some miscommunication. Moving forward with this information in hand, I will be more careful. I agree that if you attempt to label somebody as xyz and use it against them it can be damaging to the debate- but if, as I did, you assume that you are indeed speaking to a person who is openly xyz and make the off hand remark about how their ideology's position says "etc" and you disagree with it on "so and so grounds" there's no harm done.

    That is to say, I thought most of us here were being very open about our positions. I'm a staunch Libertarian, for example. I know what FEAR thinks on the issues, as well as Wes and Daywalker.

    This is all just a misunderstanding due to lack of information and communication.
    Last edited by Vulgotha; 05-13-2013 at 06:39.


  24. #96
    Unbound Mercenary
    Kwes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    16,250
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    480,359 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Damn guys, this is more entertaining then a political debate. Mainly cause its about guns.

    I'm strong anti-gun control, and always will be as it doesn't work. Chicago is the only word needed to express my reasoning for lack of faith in said control for reasons of lack of results. Gun control takes guns from law abiding citizens, and does not affect criminals.
    Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.




  25. #97
    Veteran
    weskurtz81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,845
    Rep Power
    74
    Points
    18,996 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulgotha View Post
    Edit:

    I balked at the suggestion of mandatory insurance for firearms. To be frank, I'm not sold on insurance as such a beneficial thing in general.
    In some cases insurance may not be beneficial, but if you are a business owner that invested everything you have into starting up a successful company and end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit because someone that works for you made a mistake.... you will be very thankful you have insurance.

    The problem with insurance is it's used incorrectly which makes it expensive. It's really designed to be used as protection from catastrophe, not for every little thing that happens that can possibly be claimed.

    Insurance greases the gears of free enterprise, it provides a level of protection for risk takers that otherwise may not be willing to take the risk.
    "you are both the product and the architect of your environment"


  26. #98
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,442
    Rep Power
    102
    Points
    1,988 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by weskurtz81 View Post
    In some cases insurance may not be beneficial, but if you are a business owner that invested everything you have into starting up a successful company and end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit because someone that works for you made a mistake.... you will be very thankful you have insurance.

    The problem with insurance is it's used incorrectly which makes it expensive. It's really designed to be used as protection from catastrophe, not for every little thing that happens that can possibly be claimed.

    Insurance greases the gears of free enterprise, it provides a level of protection for risk takers that otherwise may not be willing to take the risk.
    That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work but we both know that that is not how it's used. I would propose doing away with insurance altogether.

  27. #99
    Veteran
    weskurtz81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,845
    Rep Power
    74
    Points
    18,996 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Morganator View Post
    That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work but we both know that that is not how it's used. I would propose doing away with insurance altogether.

    Why?
    "you are both the product and the architect of your environment"


  28. #100
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,442
    Rep Power
    102
    Points
    1,988 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by weskurtz81 View Post
    Why?
    Corruption, fraud. Some insurance companies even have direct access to the FED. It's best to just be rid of it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.