Ambrosia Software Web Board: Add yourself to the Ambrosia map - Ambrosia Software Web Board

ankhwatcher, on Nov 11 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

Yes, yes it is. Please explain how puting a poison in your body does anything else...cause that is what alcohol is.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 11 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

Funny how few people in the city own guns...you know alot of people go hunting over hear...and where I am right now lots of people survive all winter on what they kill in a hunting season. Not everyone has buko bucks to go spend at the store.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 11 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

Basically here we have to points of view. Let me explain them. Having a gun is simply a turn off to anyone who is trying to kill you. Most murders are by someone who knows you. Okay so lets put this into perspective. When burglars are interview one of the things tha always comes up is that they won't rob a house with a dog. Why? Dogs bark and make noise, and dogs bite and hurt them. Why not just rob a house without a dog. I use the same logic with guns. If someone knows you and they know that you have a gun it makes it a lot harder to kill you. Why? how many people want to be shot while commiting a crime. Even if you just want to kill the person. You left out one situation also. The person sees the gun freezes. You make noise wake up others call the police he is arrested. This happens more often then you think because no one wants to die. So for the murderor, burglar, or otherwise criminal a gun raises the issue is what they are doing worth death? My perspective puts that problems in an uncontrolable factor for the criminal. They have a factor they cannot plan for in their crime.

Now lets look at your view. The responsiblity is all on the criminal. A hardened criminal who is doing this for whatever reason. He has a plethora of choices. He can poison you, stab you, break your neck with a blunt object, run you over, sufficate you, or buy a gun illegally and shoot you through the head, would you like me to continue... and you have no protection, or at least no immediate protection. So all the factors lie in the hands of the criminal. He can condition himself, psyche himself up, plan for every detail, and get away scot free.

My conclusion. I'd rather have the responsibility and liberty to defend myself. Then leave my safety in the hands of the government, the police, or a hardened criminal who needs money for his meth addiction. We just see this two different ways.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 11 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

I don't know many families with exactly 2.4 kids. Anyway my family had four kids. It was cheaper to buy and run one large car then buy and run two. See two 30 mpg cars running at the same rate as one 15mpg car is that same. Plus the two will probably produce more harmful emmisions. Most people buying suvs have large families. Or at least of the people I know. Plus there has been a huge move to minivans lately. So stereotyping in this case may actually backfire on your logic.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 11 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

Sorry you should know better than that. You can't do that. It require background checks, id, registration, and a couple weeks to buy any gun. BTW that is right, I was going to go by an AK-47 while they are legal. Sorry got to go to the gun shop. See ya.



P.S.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 11 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

Forgot this point. It does. Whoever has the army has the power. In america the citizens are the army. The government is responsible too us. To keep it this way we have to be able to defend against any government breaking of the constitution. It would just be as easy for the government to bomb a group of troublemakers and turn off the news cameras if the people had no way of defending themselves. Just like they do in North Korea and China. Sorry, I"ll take my freedom over oppression anyday.

Swithich, on Nov 12 2005, 07:50 PM, said:

Why? Why would disabling the ability of people to sovle their problems with firearms be a traversty?

"Still, banning guns won't solve anything. The really determined people will still find a way to get guns, and the rest of us will be at a disadvantage for it."-Avatara
That is as maybe, but still the less determined people (i.e. the average citizen) won't have a gun. Less guns is better.

Because it shows that the government is now the ultimate authority...not the people.

Swithich, on Nov 12 2005, 08:24 PM, said:

Alcohol is a drug... not a poison. Lead is a poison.

Swithich, on Nov 12 2005, 08:24 PM, said:

Why a dog? Why a gun?
Do you know what protects my house? We have box outside, screwed to the wall, it looks like an alarm system. Its just a box. we also have two radios and a number of lights, the radio's are left on, and the lights are on timers. Our house seems alive whether we are home or not. No one will rob us when we are at home.
I presume your american criminals are much the same... unwilling to rob a house which may contain people... so what good is the gun? If your house is broken into and robbed while you are away what good did the gun do?
In all likely hood some dangerous criminal has just walked off with it. You have just armed a criminal... good work.

Swithich, on Nov 12 2005, 08:24 PM, said:

A hardened criminal... what hardened criminal wants to kill you? Why are you pissing off the hardened criminals? Is it because that gun in pocket makes you feel invincible?

Swithich, on Nov 12 2005, 08:24 PM, said:

I have been in a fight or two in my time and they are evidence that no-one should have a gun I don't care how_######ing reasonable you think you are... when the red mist decends you will do anything to hurt the person you feel is your opponent. I've never held a gun more dangerous than a paintball gun (which is plenty dangerous enough) but i can't help but feel that if i had a gun about my person while i was angry enough to fight {and when i fight i always feel cornered and desperate automatically} I would have shot the other combatant... go directly to jail, do not collect 50 pasos.
So think about the above quote of Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Saturday Night Special", if you were drunk or drugged and you felt cheated, you start to argue... and when someone tells you to ######_off...

Swithich, on Nov 12 2005, 08:24 PM, said:

I am free not to be shot. I am a free person.
I am not armed. I am not paranoid that if I am not the one in control then I am the one in chains.
I know my government and your government are not trying to run and/or ruin my life. I know that the governments of democratic countries are run by the people for the people.
You seem to be of the opinion that if you can't topple the government personally you can't trust it.
In Waco the arms and mistrust combined and brought down a terrifying s###-storm on those held up in the compound. Thinking you can fight the government off is insanely stupid.

Swithich, on Nov 12 2005, 08:29 PM, said:

The government aren't trying to kill you! Live with it! And if they are move to Canada! Where people are less insane and use the guns they possess less!

That's a lot of exclamation points.

The Journalist, on Nov 13 2005, 01:29 AM, said:

A sign of madness according to Terry Pratchett.

Hehe. Pratchett is awesome.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 12 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

Lead isn't a poison any more than water, or, yes, alcohol are poisons. In high dosages, just about anything can be lethal, but that doesn't mean that they are poisons. Hell, even what are considered poisons aren't necessarily poisonous in small dosages. There's not a ground water source in the world that isn't laced with at least a nominal amount of arsenic. Alcohol can be used as a poison in the same manner as you could use lead or arsenic as poisons, just load someone up with enough to kill them.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 12 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

How about if someone is so inclined to kill you? What good will your nice box and radios do you then? Nobody in the heartland of America is worried about having their house broken into and robbed because no criminal is stupid enough to break into a house where there is even the chance of someone sitting in there with a shotgun (surveys of criminals has confirmed this). If someone is breaking into your house over here, it is statistically more likely that they are doing so purely to rape, batter, or kill you than it is over in your neck of the woods, things that will only happen when you are home. You keep a gun around to defend against this, not burglary (there are localized exceptions to this, of course).

ankhwatcher, on Nov 12 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

What drunk driver wants to crash into you? Why the hell are you driving around tempting the drunks to smash into your car? Is it because the airbags and seatbelts you have in your car makes you invincible?

Why is this idea that there are no crazies and idiots in this world so prevalent? Sure I'm not going to go out of my way to piss off a criminal so that he'll kill me in the exact same way that I'm not going to seek out a drunk driver to crash into me. Of course, s### happens in this world. Every one of us will piss off a good number of people in our lives for one reason or another, often by accident, so how the hell am I to know that this guy I've just accidentally bumped into and poured coffee on is some sort of crazy ######ing homicidal maniac? I don't, just as I don't know if the driver of the particular blue Chevrolet coming down the street toward me hasn't just polished off a bottle of vodka in the past twenty minutes. If that blue Chevy happens to swerve in front of me and nail me head-on, I'm going to be damn happy that I have airbags and a seatbelt on, just as I would be happy that I have my gun on me if the crazy ######er who I just spilt coffee on happens to pull his gun with murderous intent.

Of course, as we all know, just because I'm wearing my seatbelt and my airbags deploy in the accident, it doesn't mean that I won't still end up dying, just as, even if I can get my gun out and fire a shot off, doesn't mean that the killer won't also be able to fire off a shot and kill me. In both cases, I have done something to try to save my own skin. If I get hit head on at a high speed in my truck and I don't have my seatbelt on, I'm almost certainly dead. If he wants to shoot me in the forehead and I don't have a gun, I'm almost certainly dead. If I put on my seatbelt on the theory that it might be just enough to keep me from flying through the windshield, or I pack my gun on the theory that I might be just quick enough a draw to stop my own murder, then I have taken measures to insure my own protection.

That said, nobody wakes up in the morning thinking "Boy, I'm going to get killed off in a car crash today." mainly because they've never been killed off before in their car and that it is extremely unlikely that they are going to run into the drunk on the expressway, but is that any reason for them not to put on their seatbelt? I carry a gun for the same reason that I wear my seatbelt, not as any sort of guarantee that it will save my live, but on the idea that it might.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 12 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

I've never seen a real fight outside of the occasional schoolyard brawl back in the day. I'd like to think that its because everyone knows that there's a chance that their opponent is armed and that they may well die very quickly. In my opinion, you would have to be enormously stupid to even consider getting in a fight in an uncontrolled environment because anyone who would be in a position to start one would almost have to be armed in this country.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 12 2005, 02:30 PM, said:

The US is not now, nor has ever been, a democracy. The statement that the US is "a country governed for the people, by the people" stems from the idea that the people are the sovereign and have the power to disestablish their government. The government in the US wasn't established to hold sovereign rule over the people on the precise "opinion" that you seem to hold in such disdain. The Republic of the United States of America was established on a single theory which plainly states that if you cannot topple the government, then you cannot trust it.

-Pufer

And that is the attitude you apply to every situation... why wear a bullet proof vest, which will definitely stop a bullet to the chest (the place everyone is taught to aim for). When you can have a gun which (if you know that the other person is going to shoot you) you can shoot them first with, then you can go kill anyone else who annoys you, or disagrees with your beleifs.
It seems that Americans have the exact same mindset as the terrorist who are trying to kill them!
You love freedom. Your freedom. Your freedom which has to be protected by your ability to draw a gun and blaze away at whover you precieve to be impinging on your freedom.
Is that evil freedom hating trafic warden giving you a ticket? Shoot the F|_|cker!
Did that guy give you a look of murderous intent when you cheekily slipped your car into the space he was waiting for? Did he lean over to the far side of the car, maybe to shout out the window at you? Or maybe he's getting a gun out of the glove compartment (now officially renamed the map and gun compartment)!
Oh my god, if you wait for him to roll down the window he may already have his gun in hand! Better Shoot the F|_|cker!

Ireland also won its independance from Britian, but unlike you lot we had no help (you owe the French Navy quite a lot, with out them the British would have been able to extract and redeploy troops all along the coast, making it nearly impossible for the Americans to hold any of their cities.)
The nearest Ireland got to that kind of help was a boatload of Germans guns which we had to skuttle before the British got their hands on them.
So why do we not feel the need to be armed? Past experience has showed that no-one will help us.
The reason we don't need guns is because we won. We defeated our opponent and they know they can never win. They have learned their lesson.
Americans need guns because they never won, when America was finished killing the Brittish, it moved onto the Native Americans, When supplies of Native Americans ran low America started killing Americans.
Skip forward a few centuries and America's policies are turning their one time allies into their freedom hating enemies!
When will the war stop? If America was the only country in the world what would happen? A civil war, that's what. The Democrats versus The Jews versus the Republicans versus The Blacks versus The Asians versus the Protestans versus the Chatholics versus the Muslims... and so on. Everyone would split into a few factions and start killing the members of other factions.
Why am I saying this? What makes me so certain? Well of all the countries in the first world, there is only one where people buy loads of guns and use them on each other. And that is America.


"I've never seen a real fight outside of the occasional schoolyard brawl back in the day. I'd like to think that its because everyone knows that there's a chance that their opponent is armed and that they may well die very quickly. In my opinion, you would have to be enormously stupid to even consider getting in a fight in an uncontrolled environment because anyone who would be in a position to start one would almost have to be armed in this country." -Pufer
You live in constant fear, that must be great fun.

Tell me why Americans use guns to kill each other?

ankhwatcher, on Nov 13 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

I'm one of the few private citizens who has bothered to purchase an oppresively expensive bullet proof vest and have had occasion to wear it. When I am wearing it, however, I do have the presence of mind to realize that body armor is no more likely to save me in a gun battle than my airbag will save me in an auto accident. Sure it may help, but a vest certainly won't "definitely" stop a bullet to the chest. Secondarily, I was taught to shoot for the head and not stop shooting until the threat is gone, just as everyone else has been. Cops shoot for the chest because they occasionally are shooting at distances greater than we citizens could get away with and society frowns upon cops using head-shots, the rest of us shoot for the head.

Thirdly, I hate to break this to you, but I, and probably you as well, would have absolutely no problem killing anyone who "annoys you or doesn't share your beliefs" even if I wasn't armed. Giving me a gun doesn't make me any more of a potential threat in terms of killing people than I already am. The only thing that keeps any of us alive is that most people have the restraint to not kill everybody else. I have that restraint whether I have a gun or I don't, if the only thing keeping you and your fellow countrymen from killing one another off is that you don't have guns, then I'm quite glad for your sake that you don't. In the US, however, the unimaginably large majority of gunowners, both legal and illegal, apperantly have more restraint than the common Irishman and will never kill anybody in their lives.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 13 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

Ah, so you're promoting the stance of the German people under the Nazi regime then. It doesn't matter to what extent the government is infringing upon our rights, we have no right to oppose it. Yeah, sure, kill us, you're dead wrong for doing so Mr. Hitler, but I'm sure as hell not going to say anything about it (much less rise up against you).

ankhwatcher, on Nov 13 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

Doing either of those things would likely result in your losing your life at the hands of the state in the US. As most people don't want to be executed, it doesn't happen. Even if there was no penalty for such actions, it still doesn't happen. You must be getting a pretty wild view of America from whatever source you get your info from.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 13 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

Yeah, the Revolutionary War, we do owe the French on that one. But what about the War of 1812? Oh you know, the war that started a few decades after Britain lost the first round and came back. The one where Britain did deploy troops all along the coast, burned most all of the major cities (including Washington) along the Eastern Seaboard to the ground. The one where the US was forced to fight the war on three fronts, with no outside support (Napoleon had just lost the war and left the throne during Britain's war on the US, so the French didn't help us out at all on this one, in fact, French ships were claimed by the British Royal Navy and used in their full blockade of the US coast). We may have declared ourselves independent during the first war with the British, but we won our independence during the second one.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 13 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

With the exception of Vietnam and, to a certain extent, Korea, when exactly haven't we won? Revolutionary war, check. War of 1812, check. Succesionist war, check. Spanish-American War, check. Mexican-American War, check. FilAm war, check. WWI, check. WWII, check (likely saving your asses in Ireland on that one as well, you think ol' Hitler wouldn't have bothered crossing that little trench of water for you guys after claiming England, not likely). Cold War, check. And a solid number of smaller wars as well. We've already had our fill of killing each other in the late 19th century, we're off killing everybody else again. Of course, you Irish folks have been killing each other off for petty religious differences for hundreds of years (I'll have something more to say about this in a second), how're you different.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 13 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

For all intents and purposes, nobody is using their guns on one another in this country any more than they are in England. What you are saying here is tatamount to me saying that the IRA is made up of Irish folks, then pointing out that you're Irish, and concluding that you blow busses up. "Americans" don't kill each other, some Americans kill each other.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 13 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

You live in great ignorance of what there is in the world worthy of fear, I have no doubt that your viewpoint is more fun than possessing a conception of reality as it is.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 13 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

Tell me why Irish people use bombs to kill each other?

-Pufer

Pufer, on Nov 14 2005, 06:28 AM, said:

Wrong again! The IRA disarmed. Perhaps could do the same.

Pufer, on Nov 14 2005, 06:28 AM, said:

Pufer dear, I have plenty to fear,
I could get mugged or bugged,
I could be stabbed or bashed,
But this I can tot! I will not be shot!

ankhwatcher, on Nov 14 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

Which part of my statement is wrong, the fact that the IRA does, in fact, blow up busses (regardless of their current relative armament) or the fact that you are Irish? I was just getting on you for your sweeping generalizations. Americans, as a whole, are vastly more likely to not kill each other than actually kill each other, just as Irish folks, as a whole, were vastly more likely to not blow busses up than actually blow up busses, even when the IRA was fully armed.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 14 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

First off, very nice. Secondly, you're relatively more likely to survive a gunshot wound than being bashed over the head with a brick. Also, my defensive handgun is remarkably effective against brick weilding assailants, so I need not worry about being bashed (much less stabbed or mugged) when armed. All things equal, beyond my being armed with my trusty .45, if the two of us were to be attacked by both a man with a handgun and a man with a brick (hell, let's go nuts, at the same time), I would be far more likely to survive such a confrontation (I could figure out the actual probabilities if I were so inclined, just roughly estimating them though, t'would be better than a 60% survival chance for me, somewhere between 0-5% for you. I'll take my 60% if it's all the same to you).

-Pufer

Pufer, on Nov 14 2005, 10:44 PM, said:

Yes, the bit where they blow up busses. The irish invented the car-bomb, you don't need a bus. Suicidal terorists blow up busses. Chatholics don't do suicide.

Pufer, on Nov 14 2005, 10:44 PM, said:

Nope, more Americans kill one another and themselves with guns than in any other "civilised" (I'm not entirely happy using that term) country.

Pufer, on Nov 14 2005, 10:44 PM, said:

I'm glad you like it.

Pufer, on Nov 14 2005, 10:44 PM, said:

Ah yes, but you fail to factor in my razor sharp wit (You twit!), inwillingness to die, considerable threatening bulk. And of course the fact that your "Trusty .45" would be in your pocket until after someone was pointing a gun at you.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 14 2005, 04:15 PM, said:

On 20 August 1988, the IRA blew up a bus killing off a number of British army folks and on 18 February 1996, an IRA operative blew himself up inside of a bus in London.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 14 2005, 04:15 PM, said:

Ah, you misread what I said. I just said that more Americans don't kill each other off than do, which is a fact which is impossible to dispute (otherwise we'd be losing over half of our population every year), the rest of the world doesn't come into it.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 14 2005, 04:15 PM, said:

I actually did factor those things in. You're facing a guy with a gun and another guy with a brick. The guy with the gun shoots you (you have no recourse beyond trying to zing the bullet out of the air with a witty comeback) but, statistically speaking, people don't die from getting shot once, but you have been shot and are less able to fight off the brick guy, who eventually pins you and caves in your skull. Now, even assuming that the guy with the gun already has his gun out, unless he kills me with his first shot (which will be rushed by the fact that I'm drawing my gun, and, thus, less likely to hit me) I'll be firing at him. After I've wounded him at least, I can turn and nail the brick guy before he gets to me then finish off the gun guy. Game theory suggests that, unless the shooter can finish me off with his first shot, I'm probably (60%, which is probable, but only just, I'm still liable to die) going to live if I can dispose of the brick guy.

-Pufer

Pufer, on Nov 15 2005, 05:36 AM, said:

Yes, but the gun guy and the brick guy probably wouldn't want to kill me, just take my wallet.
But if you have a gun they cant just take your wallet, your still a threat... they must take your gun so you don't shoot them in the back. If you try to draw your gun, you will be shot. And despite what happens in Lethal Weapon if you've been shot (possibly repeatedy, why only shoot once?), your unlikely to manage to shoot back. But that guy with the half a brick in a sock (thank you Terry Pratchett) would still bludgeon you to death, or unconciousness.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 15 2005, 04:55 AM, said:

Not part of my hypothetical, I actually have the two coming up to you with the sole intention of killing you off. Also, oddly enough, criminals do tend to only shoot once, a phenomenon that has caused much puzzlement amongst groups who worry themselves about such things, especially as cops will frequently empty their guns, reload, and empty their guns once more at threats without giving it any concious thought (the exact opposite reaction). It is also worthy of note that, contrary to movies other than Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, and a few others, most movies make it seem that a single gun shot is not only often instantly fatal, but immediately takes someone out of action. Unless you kill a person with your first shot (very unlikely) they will still probably be able to keep firing at you, just less accurately. Since most criminals are surprisingly poor shots (not as poor as everyone seems to think they are, but usually worse than me or a cop) to begin with, setting them on their ass usually gets them way off target. I'm more likely to kill the average criminal off after we've both been wounded than he is to kill me. Ever wonder why one-on-one gang shootouts so often end up with two empty pistols and two fatalities, but shootouts with cops end up with the same two empty pistols, but only one fatality?

-Pufer

I'm surprised this hasn't been locked yet, especially with that nice, neat row of four.

Because there's a valid discussion going on.

Pufer, on Nov 16 2005, 05:38 AM, said:

Nah, we don't hear much about gang shoot-outs and fatalities around here. We just hear arrest numbers and pounds of drugs removed... I wonder why...

And actually I've now realised that your scenario with its survival chances was wrong:
I'm saying that no one should have a gun. Your saying that anyone over the age of 18 (or is 21?) should be able to buy one.
So while you are assailed by a man with a gun and a man with a brick, I should only be assailed by a man with a brick.
Easy, I run away. He can throw it, but its dark (honestly... who kills in the daylight). He will probably miss. I escape. 100%
You consider your odds 60%.
No guns wins again.
GO GHANDI!

Except for one thing. Your guy got a gun illegally and shot you.

The Apple Cøre, on Nov 16 2005, 11:00 PM, said:

Ah, yes, but as we are dealing with odds, we have to consider the odds of my assailant going to the trouble of getting a handgun illegally to do a job easily achieved by a knife.
Also we must consider the odds of An Garda Siocana removing the firearm from his possetion before he had a chance to make use of it.

ankhwatcher, on Nov 16 2005, 04:03 PM, said:

I thought we just established that knives aren't very effective compared to guns in that they require more accurancy and an incredibly shorter range. So, if someone was out to kill you (or anyone), they'd most likely get a gun illegally than try to stab you with a knife...or a brick. Not to mention, if most countries can't stop all illegal drug dealings on the black market, how can you be sure they'll stop all illegal weapon sales?

Avatara, on Nov 17 2005, 01:56 AM, said:

Only Americans and sociopaths are addicted to guns.

I'm an American and I don't have a gun.

I'm even a Texan without a gun.