Opinion on weapons...

sighs

Semantics.

Oh well, you can view it any way you want to. In my mind you will be viewed exactly how I view you, not how you want to believe you should be viewed.

If you do not accept, my view on the word tolerant, so be it.

And, the difference Duncan. Frenchy "Said Orph is wrong"

I on the other hand never used the word, I just showed him the difference as I see it. I detest people using the word "Wrong" in a sentence when the topic is purely an opinion based subject. I may have indicated that I felt he was wrong, but I didn't use those words. It sets him up as the definitive decider of who's got the correct position.

If I said the sky was pink, and in fact it was blue at the time, you could say I was wrong. If I say you are tolerant, and you say I am wrong because you are accepting. Thats the difference.

In the end, I don't care if using the word "acceptable" makes you feel better. Its out of context and shouldn't be used. "Tolerant" is the better choice.

Screw how it feels.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

IMO, it's not about the weapons, but who's owning them and for what reason. I'd trust Mother Theresa with a nuclear weapon sooner then I'd trust your average Joe with a BB gun.

[edit]s**t, mother theresa is dead, isn't she? my bad.[/edit]

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

interesting retort there duncan....

imho....homosexuality goes against everything that is natural, f**k religion and the like (crosses self***).....nature....the methods of procreation dictate this emphaticly....even a dog thats humping your leg would eventually give up, if hes taught that its wrong, or that he figures out theres no hole to pop.....take it a step further....that same dog, or (insert mamalian species here**) whatever, suddenly finds a hole to pop...."whoa...whats this?? wewt!!! " ....until he figures out the one be poked is male, and gets his ass bitten because, the latter hound says..."wewt!....my ass!!!" ...the natural order of things.....experimentation and retention....teacher of all things good and bad....

one step further.....humans....still nature, the teacher.....males and females..."insert tab a into slot a, so on and so forth"....in order to divert from that tried and true, and natural system, one has had to have had either a) an experience in thier development that precludes them from actually discerning the events as natural, or unnatural, because....hey....that felt pretty damn good....hmmm....that which is enjoyable, is repeated....and the human animal is one of few that can rationalize it past what is instinct.....and after its rationalized, it is defended.....the rest is history.

or b) could be a medical condition, as ive seen data supporting this thoery as well.....in that context, they are "born that way...." ...personally, i find that an "excuse".

now....seeing as i have a brother who is not only as flamingly gay as the wind is clear, hes militant.....and for many years, ive had a theory that i actually had something to do with his "condition", as he used to take some powerful ass whoopings from me and my older sister, which i KNOW f**ked up his head but good....the folly of youth....and im sure it carried over....theres no way it couldnt have....

he has his partner, and they are actually very nice, kind, polite, and reverent, in their own way....i love my brother to death, and i would fight and die for him....hes my brother....but that doesnt mean the debate doesnt get heated when we are aropund the christmas dinner table....and although we are both mature adults, at least usually, weve ironed all that s**t out....and i was right...

....and ill take that fact to my grave.

point is, this is my personal opinion, bourne of many years of experience, and all that goes with it, good and bad.....maybe thatll give a new angle, maybe not. tolerance and acceptance are interchangable to a degree, but some of both are needed, just to get through the day. who actually goes a day without one good rationalization...?

.......but wtf does this thread tangent really have to do with weapons?? :heee:

Doc B... :dodgy:

edit....ah yes....he can hit me with his purse....////runs

imho....homosexuality goes against everything that is natural,

I assume that you define "natural" as in nature.
If so, how do you explain that there are gay animals aswell?

There are even species (sorry for not remembering their names) where the males choose to be gay during the seasons when the females arent "breedable".

My personal opinion is that there isnt such things as homosexuality, bisexuality or being "straight". We all may fall in love with people not their sex. We all may fall in love with someone with the same sex as ours. The reason why most people dont is because we supress those feelings, consciously or unconsciously.

We simply dont allow ourselves to watch people with the same sex the same way as we watch people from the opposite sex.

Whatever the case, this clearly isn't a topic about homosexuality?

MisterBister said:
I assume that you define "natural" as in nature.
If so, how do you explain that there are gay animals aswell?

There are even species (sorry for not remembering their names) where the males choose to be gay during the seasons when the females arent "breedable".

My personal opinion is that there isnt such things as homosexuality, bisexuality or being "straight". We all may fall in love with people not their sex. We all may fall in love with someone with the same sex as ours. The reason why most people dont is because we supress those feelings, consciously or unconsciously.

We simply dont allow ourselves to watch people with the same sex the same way as we watch people from the opposite sex.

Now, I am going to try to put this in some logical fashion, but since we are talking about an illogical subject it might prove beyond me.

1st off, people may fall in love with the individual, and not the sex but how does that matter in the slightest? People fall in love, with someone else's spouse every day, yet it is supposed to be wrong. If its OK to fall in love with the same gender, it should be OK to fall in love with someone else's spouse.

2ndly, are you attempting to compare animals to people? Animals commit things daily, that people would go to jail for. People are supposed to know the difference, that is why they are animals and we are people. Now, thats not to confuse evolution and whatnot, because I believe we evolved from animals, but I would like to hope that being such, I could distinguish right from not right.. (I hesitate using the word wrong because someone will call me on it.)

3rdly, it is human nature to breed with everyone that one can get away with (some actually do) but most of us know its wrong to do it so we control ourselves.

4thly, its within a males nature to breed, period. Age doesn't even seem to matter, only our taboos keep us from having sex with children. Yet, even though a few do it we still know its incorrect. (wrong)

Now, you expect me to believe, that just because two people love each other in some fashion, it shouldn't matter that there genders are conflicting?

I for one, do not believe its a suppression of any sort. Its in our nature to know its (wrong) to have sex with the same gender. Our genetic make up dictates it.

I would be willing to bet (but have absolutely no way of doing so) that if there were a way to test people, people who have no preconceptions of homosexuality, that they would still be abhorrent to the idea if they were shown.

In other words, people are not taught to dislike homosexuality, its in our nature to dislike it. Its as much a possibility as being born Gay. I still disbelieve thats even possible, but if its true, so is being born against it.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

well maybe..

gwillypoo.. want to examine the effects of my sixshooter in a very frictional situation? IMO, it'll be quite the enjoyable exchange.

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

Sounds like an offer I can't refuse :razz:

But maybe just this once i'll have to turn it down :wink:

Gwil said:
Whatever the case, this clearly isn't a topic about homosexuality?

Clearly, unless you are suggesting that weapons cannot be such. I mean, people use words as weapons, in fact I heard that the pen is mightier than the sword.

People use ideals as weapons too.

What if homosexuality is a weapon intended to disrupt the very core of this site?

Gawd, I'd hate to think... Then again, I dare you to find a thread that has stayed on topic. :heee:

Clearly, I think that sometimes it does more harm to forbid a thing, than to allow it.

There is a topic on drugs here. Its a flammable topic because many believe that legalizing them would ruin the concept and people would stop doing them so much.

The police don't want them legal because they couldn't make money off the convictions.

The dealers damned sure don't want them legal. Everyone knows that supply and demand dictate prices.

Now.. Is this a topic on homosexuality? Not really, but it could have been.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Why am I always late to these things?

I'm just going to rebuke Orph for a sec, then I'll be on my way.

Orph, you said that Frenchy can't accept homosexuals, on the basis that
that would make him homosexual. This is coming from the guy who
recently made the distinction between homosexuals(the people) and
homosexuality(the idea). If Frenchy were accepting
homosexuality(the idea), that would make him a homosexual, yes, but he
isn't accepting the idea, he's accepting the people. By accepting
the people, he is merely becoming friends/friendly with them, not
participating in homosexual activities along with them.

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying

breathing the same air as them makes you gay. duh.

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

A gun as a self defence weapon in a urban is useless for a untrained person.

Did you know that only 15% of the soldiers in WWII dared to fire there weapon? Werent they trained to do so? Yes they were.

The military figured that they needed to not train people to shoot, but to kill. And believe me, i doubt anyone here would dare to pull the trigger on a intruder. Just because the sheer fact that it hunts you every time you close your eye's.

A british documentary followd a person that wanted to know the truth behind killing. Its a 2 hour documentary but very interesting to watch, it was aired on National Geograhic channel, called : The truth about killing.

---

RUST Gamedesign
pepper design

The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.

Sigh

You guys really don't get it do you?
There are those from both the religious side and scientific side that will say that homosexuality is a sin or unnatural. I don't understand how loving another human being is a sin or unnatural. f**k the church and f**k evolution, nobody on this planet has a right to deny another person happiness, simply because they don't agree with the ethics. Homosexuality is not a choirce, understand this, I know it's a cliche but it's true. There are those out there who would like to do harm and even kill those that love someone of the same gender. They seam to forget we are all humans. Gender, skin color, religion, etc, should not be a determining factor for love.

Stadric said:
Why am I always late to these things?

I'm just going to rebuke Orph for a sec, then I'll be on my way.
Orph, you said that Frenchy can't accept homosexuals, on the basis that that would make him homosexual. This is coming from the guy who recently made the distinction between homosexuals(the people) and homosexuality(the idea). If Frenchy were accepting homosexuality(the idea), that would make him a homosexual, yes, but he isn't accepting the idea, he's accepting the people. By accepting the people, he is merely becoming friends/friendly with them, not participating in homosexual activities along with them.

I will use a word, no one can refute.

"Patronize"

I believe you, you're absolutely right. If Frenchy says he accepts, he accepts.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

pepper said:
And believe me, i doubt anyone here would dare to pull the trigger on a intruder.

I've already thought about that: well, there's no need to kill an intruder caught sneaking into your house: you can just shoot him in the legs. You wont go to jail for that, and you wont have anything heavy on your conscience; plus it's an efficient way to make him "freeze" until the arrival of the police. If one day I were in that position, I would fire in the leg: it's the only way not to hesitate.

from what i've seen on tv etc, it's better to make the clean kill if you're in the US. damaging someone, and letting them live to sue you for it, can be a very costly business.

---

i eat paint

fishy said:
from what i've seen on tv etc, it's better to make the clean kill if you're in the US. damaging someone, and letting them live to sue you for it, can be a very costly business.

I have cop friends. They tell it like this:

1st besure that they are in your home, even if you have to drag the body inside to accomplish it.

2nd, shoot to kill.

3rd, repeat step #1 if there are 2 bodies.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I've got a question for your cop friends, Orph. Where exactly
does the right to do anything to an intruder on your property stop?

Stadric said:
I've got a question for your cop friends, Orph. Where exactly does the right to do anything to an intruder on your property stop?

Before they break in? They have the right not to burglarize your property. I thought that was perfectly clear. Or did I misunderstand your question?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I've got a question for your cop friends, Orph. Where exactly
does the right to do anything to an intruder on your property stop?

The right to self-defense stops when the intruder is no longer a threat: if they run away, surrender or are incapacitated or killed, it's time to stop shooting.

Metrosexuals! That's what's wrong with this world! They give weapons a reason to exist.

Because they dress good?

I've got a question for your cop friends, Orph. Where exactly
does the right to do anything to an intruder on your property stop?

I think torture is past that line :razz:

Also has anyone ever talked to someone who think games give them the ability to shoot any gun in real life?

Me!

Jking, though my ability to shoot a gun is limited to a .22 rifle...

Playing a shooting game won't give you the ability to handle a weapon,
but it will help with your hand eye coordination and that is what
counts after you know the basics. And before I get flamed let me tell
to some of you that don't know this from before: I've been to army. I'm
a reserve machinegunner. I was chosen for that job due to my good aim.
The best of the machinegunners were selected as snipers. I'm not a
masterful shot, but I can drop a moving target from 150 meters with one
shot(using an RK-62 finnish made AK-47 derivate with better sights and
some other minor improvements). As for hitting and shooting at humans;
in our combat excercises we used wood headed blanks and infra red
emitters as well as infra red recieving vests. I've shot at humans. I
know it's different from actually killing them with hard rounds, but
still you get that feeling at the bottom of your stomach when you
squeeze the trigger...

As for do I approve guns. Yes, if there's some control over whom them
are given to. The "bad guys" will always get their guns, but control
limits the amount of crazy people running around killing people for
fun(I know it's bluntly said).

As for homemade guns, well as long as you have control over your own
doings and you're responsible there's nothing wrong with it.

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires

Uhh.. I hope what you mean is that in an ideal society weapons are unnecessary. If a government or society simply bans having weapons then bad things are going to happen. Someone evil will have something and use it and no one will have a way to defend against it or stop him. I tend to subscribe to the "If everyone has weapons, and everone knows it, people will be far less likely to commit crimes" idea.

I think I'm with most people on this one, in that I don't have a problem with having weapons so long as you are responsible and understand the implications of owning something that can kill a person, or do serious damage. That is a very very serious and often overlooked (or given lack of serious contemplation) situation people can get into.

Animals.. whatever. There is an overpopulation of deer around where I live. I have no problem with people hunting deer. I own a .22 semi-automatic longrifle. I have it because I enjoy shooting targets, not for protection. My father owns a shotgun for the same reason. If someone broke into my house and I actually got the drop on them, I'd probably kick them (HARD) into a wall and do my best to knock them out, then call 911.

---

___My Site___ | www.leveldesign.nl