Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Dirty30 Dillon Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > ID OD Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > i mind my business, and am fearless. we choose

>

> > to live in a place people run from. it is our contribution to a

> positive change.

>

> This is the way we should all live.

>

> You can read through the linked BJS .pdf and look for yourself. What

> it's saying is that crime is rising, not to go buy a gun.

there's a reason the government wants to disarm it's citizens... so when they do something the citizens dont like, they wont be able to do anything about it. it's pretty obvious

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Dirty30 Dillon /

> Chris Szuba Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > Dirty30 Dillon Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > > ID OD Wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> >

>

> > > i mind my business, and am fearless. we choose

>

> >

>

> > > to live in a place people run from. it is our contribution to a

>

> > positive change.

>

> >

>

> > This is the way we should all live.

>

> >

>

> > You can read through the linked BJS .pdf and look for yourself. What

>

> > it's saying is that crime is rising, not to go buy a gun.

>

> there's a reason the government wants to disarm it's citizens... so when

> they do something the citizens dont like, they wont be able to do

> anything about it. it's pretty obvious

If "The Government" wanted to disarm it's citizens, it would just create such strict federal laws that owning a gun would be impossible, a la Britain. As you can see, that is not the case. If they let Don have a gun, I imagine they'll let anyone have one.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

I am not 100% sure I agree with your point that we should shoot government officials, but I can see where you're coming from.

Which would you shoot first, the police, army, or politicians?

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Speaking from experience, Ive had someone come into my home while my GF at the time and I were sitting on the couch.

I keep a shotgun next to my couch, but as someone mentioned it is all in the mindset of the individual with a weapon.

There are those who go out and look for trouble just to flex their guns. There are others that would have pulled a gun on said intruder.

As for me I assessed the situation, quickly looked over said individual, looked for any signs of a threat then decided to NOT aim and threaten.

Was my gun in reach in case of an attack? yes.

I could have put one in his chest faster than he couldve got to me. Ive been shooting for a long time.

I deescalated, asked him to leave without brandishing.

I wouldve felt terrible for killing someone who is likely in such a shitty situation in life that he turned to thievery, but if eminent danger arises to me or my loved ones, I like the feeling of knowing I could stop it then and there.

Like a condom, Id rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. (edited)

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Dirty30 Dillon Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

>

> If "The Government" wanted to disarm it's citizens, it would just create

> such strict federal laws that owning a gun would be impossible, a la

> Britain. As you can see, that is not the case. If they let Don have a

> gun, I imagine they'll let anyone have one.

it's slowly happening with the new Red Flag laws... some states are fighting it but the gvnt is pushing it slowly

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Chris Szuba Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > Dirty30 Dillon Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> >

>

> > If "The Government" wanted to disarm it's citizens, it would just

> create

>

> > such strict federal laws that owning a gun would be impossible, a la

>

> > Britain. As you can see, that is not the case. If they let Don have a

>

> > gun, I imagine they'll let anyone have one.

>

> it's slowly happening with the new Red Flag laws... some states are

> fighting it but the gvnt is pushing it slowly

The second amendment was put in place when the British taking over again was a real threat. Nowadays noone will form a well armed militia so using it as an argument for the loss of thousands of lives every year is pretty nonsensical.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Bas Autowas Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > Chris Szuba Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > > Dirty30 Dillon Wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > If "The Government" wanted to disarm it's citizens, it would just

>

> > create

>

> >

>

> > > such strict federal laws that owning a gun would be impossible, a la

>

> >

>

> > > Britain. As you can see, that is not the case. If they let Don have

> a

>

> >

>

> > > gun, I imagine they'll let anyone have one.

>

> >

>

> > it's slowly happening with the new Red Flag laws... some states are

>

> > fighting it but the gvnt is pushing it slowly

>

> The second amendment was put in place when the British taking over again

> was a real threat. Nowadays noone will form a well armed militia so

> using it as an argument for the loss of thousands of lives every year is

> pretty nonsensical.

you dont think there are any well armed militia's in the US ?

Edit: saw you're from the netherlands. imo you dont have a dog in this fight, buddy (edited)

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Brad William Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> My house? What???? Who the fuck goes from door to door TRYING EVERY

> GODDAMN DOORKNOB TO SEE WHICH ONE IS UNLOCKED? They break and enter,

> circumventing the locks... and EVEN B&E IS EXCEEDINGLY RARE IN MY CITY,

> MOST CITIES IN THE USA.

When I lived in suburban Cleveland in high school, I was home alone when someone tried to enter my front door. I heard them but thought it was my family coming home. 20 minutes later I called my mom and realized they were still at the store. If that door hadn't been locked I wouldn't have realized a stranger had entered my house until it was too late. You really need to find a balance between common sense safety and senseless overboard worrying

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Jimmy Cincinnati /

You really need to find a balance between common sense safety and senseless overboard worrying

Well said!

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Jimmy Cincinnati Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> >

> That is my old cashier from Aldi. She was a sweet and funny lady.

> Everytime i saw her I would make the joke "Do you ever go home!?" I cant

> really do that anymore... sadly.

>

> Lock your doors or buy a gun... or do none of that. Whatever you want.

> Its your life and Im not mad at you for whatever you choose.

Right,Jimmy! We don't care if they want to take the chance on protection...………...but mostly being lefties, they try to humiliate anyone that sees the danger and protects their family.

`It takes a village' of village idiots to try and bully us out of the second amendment rights to keep and BEAR arms.

The odds are that SOME of these misled people will have to face the terrifying truth

of a home invasion some day.

I sure HOPE they don't...…...but as long as they believe firearms are evil, and that criminals are just unfortunate victims acting out, they are vulnerable.

Again, lefties, `When guns are outlawed, ONLY outlaws will have guns.'

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

>>>

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Stephen Keller /

I have never advocated banning guns, first off we could not if we tried, something like 1.5 for every man woman and child in this country, second it is true that if illegal only criminals would still have them as they don't care. What I'm getting at is that owning one does just not seem really necessary, maybe if you have a high risk job, or work somewhere likely to be robbed, but the "criminal around every corner" thing is simply not true. There is a criminal element of course, but they are a very small majority of the population. If it makes you feel better to have guns around I don't care, I just feel bad that you live in such a state of worry. I go back and forth on the idea of buying a gun, for the very reason someone might try to tell me I can't, I don't care for that at all. But I can't justify spending the money on something that would sit in it's box on a shelf just "because". If I truly felt in danger, I could justify owning one, but I honestly don't, and I'm glad of that.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

the burning question that haunts my soul. why is LOVE absolute so detrimental to the balance of all that is?

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Stephen said: ` I just feel bad that you live in such a state of worry. '

I don't worry,Stephen….I prepare, therefore NO WORRIES.

But akin to worry is concern. I am concerned that you and yours may suffer harm due to unpreparedness. Therefore myself and my armed Brethren will sometimes be on hand to prevent the worst.

Remember what stopped that church shooting? The guy ran back to his house, and drove the guy off with his own assault style weapon.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

huh.....i thought i broke the internet.....nope.......i'm still involved in an emotion based conversation that rarely i concern myself with......virtues are the key. living them will get you to the truth. truth is love. love is real. you don't learn that in church....well maybe some do......too many wolf's in sheep's clothing for my taste......i'm open to real talk if anyone is interest. if not i'm outie.....

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Again, lefties, `When guns are outlawed, ONLY outlaws will have guns.'

don ohio seems to think that all lefties are against guns, and that all people who are against guns are lefties, because this is what fox news tells him.

i wonder if don ohio knows that history has no shortage of left-wing uprisings, where lefties were very heavily armed?

probably not--it wasn't on fox news or in the bible. (edited)

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Oh yeah...……..lefties were always heavily armed when riding as the KKK. One leftie recently even shot Steve Scalise.

The difference is...…….they don't want law-abiding `commoners' or `smelly WalMart shoppers' or `Deplorables' to keep and bear arms.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Oh yeah...……..lefties were always heavily armed when riding as the KKK.

> One leftie recently even shot Steve Scalise.

>

> The difference is...…….they don't want law-abiding `commoners' or

> r `smelly WalMart shoppers' or `Deplorables' to keep and bear arms.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Who should we shoot first.

Also why wouldn't Bas have a say? I think he's got a pretty decent set of relevant experiences. Like what happened to you bas when your government came to get you and you couldnt defend yourself with guns?

Anyway I still see the to sides arguing the same points. One one hand it's a pessimistic and strongly emotional "what if" based mostly on fear, but a justifiable fear at least in the sense that it's intent is self preservation, that's just a different way of looking at life. Versus a pretty optimistic, possibly naively optimistic belief that it won't happen to me.

But if we took the middle, and I think that's where rebel and the OP and others have gone, and look at evaluation of the most likely cases or scenarios, sometimes based on personal experiences recounted here, others based on statistics and data (rather than sensational news), that would suggest that you're safer without a gun. That most situations where a firearm could prove useful (at least human vs human) that there's far more likely than not, a resolution where you're not shooting each other. But at the same time it can be acknowledged that guns can be fun toys, or useful tools for hunting or pest control.

In short I think the argument that guns are necessary is flawed and based more on emotional response than reason.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

I can see where guns are a fun hobby. shooting stuff at a range or plinking off bb's at a backyard target, exploding glass bottles or clay pigeons is fun and "sporting" like any sport - you're practicing and developing a skill, and receiving praise for your prowess.

And further like any other hobby you can gain credibility within a community by having knowledge and skill and collections etc. Dudes who love mopeds gonna give some respect to the guy who built the fastest bike or has to coolest build or knows their shit. Dudes who love sports gonna listen to the fella who knows every round 1 draft pic or each team's pitching record. Fellas that love My Little Pony are gonna have respect for the homie whos got the rarest in their collection or can quote the most season 3 episodes. And dudes with guns get cred from gun dudes for being able to identify a 100 year old revolver or can talk shop about the best ammo for putting down a badger.

I get all that, and I get why those things matter to people. the way mopeds are in the grand scheme of things pretty dumb and useless but matter a shitload to me. it's a hobby and a pasttime and a community.

but to say you need them, and make up scenarios where you need them is no more realistic than needing to watch a sports game or being able to find alternate transportation or whatever.

the point is you don't need guns and the justifications presented for why you need them strike from emotion, and equally and concurrently with a desire to protect your continued enjoyment of a hobby. I think if you were being honest with yourself

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Born to be WillD Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Who should we shoot first.

>

> Also why wouldn't Bas have a say? I think he's got a pretty decent set

> of relevant experiences. Like what happened to you bas when your

> government came to get you and you couldnt defend yourself with guns?

I looked it up and the government implemented strict gun legislation in 1919 (after WW1) to stop revolutionary uprisings like the one that happened in Russia. (I.E. to stop communism)

I'm at work so i can't look up how the public reacted but i'm pretty shure not many people minded it.

I know several people who legally own multiple guns and they are all very glad strict regulation is in place.

If you own a gun here (legal or illegally) you have the right to shoot home invaders and if it's an illegal gun you will only get persecuted for that.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Born to be WillD Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> the point is you don't need guns and the justifications presented for

> r why you need them strike from emotion, and equally and concurrently

> with a desire to protect your continued enjoyment of a hobby.

I agree with everything you said in your last two responses. I think this point is especially important to understand. I like shooting/owning guns but they aren't necessary. Magazine size (and even caliber) restrictions would make shooting slightly more tedious, but if that means the next time some psycho starts shooting random people in a public place they can only get 10-15 shots off before reloading, I'm game. As for home defense, there's no reason you need more than 6 shots from a shotgun to stop a home intruder except for being unfamiliar and untrained with your weapon. I have a 10/22 with a 10 round magazine for home defense since I'm confident enough in my shot placement and ability under pressure. I don't need an something chambered in 5.56 to stop the theoretical boogieman who I know I'm likely to never encounter.

Nobody is coming to "take our guns" either. When's the last time a Democrat bypassed the constitution and order the removal of firearms from lawful owners? The current administration has violated the US constitution several times (that we know of right now.) Anyways, no amount of gun toting patriots is gonna be able to stop a line of tanks with their $1000+ AR build even if they did come for our guns or whatever. Our defense spending is too high, our military technology is too advanced. Insurgents in the middle east can get away with Toyota pickups with DSHKA's in the back and AK's cause it's not far off from what their governments are using. Their militaries are usually corrupt, undertrained, and underfunded.

It's just not gonna happen here; worrying about overthrowing the theoretical tyrannical government is just bonkers when you could invest time and effort into holding politicians accountable and ensuring the right people (those who don't prey off of your fears and emotions, and instead use factual data to back up their views and policies) are in office. (edited)

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Stephen Keller /

> ID OD Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> the burning question that haunts my soul. why is LOVE absolute so

> detrimental to the balance of all that is?

Because ANY view taken to an extreme is unhealthy at best, dangerous at worst.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Rural King has pistols on sale...………….I think I'll mosy down there and buy a back-up, clip fed. Never hurts to be safe! LOL!

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Dirty30 Dillon /

Nick and Will and Bas are all speaking truth.

Just because you think something is possible because it's what you "believe" doesn't make it probable.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

They are as mistaken as a person can be, and I hope they never have to face what they're burying their head in the sand so as not to reason on it.

Next they'll want to disarm the police. That's how dumb their argument can become. LOL!

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Rand Jacobson /

Let's disarm the police first!

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Stephen Keller Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > ID OD Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > the burning question that haunts my soul. why is LOVE absolute so

>

> > detrimental to the balance of all that is?

>

> Because ANY view taken to an extreme is unhealthy at best, dangerous at

> worst.

good answer. this literally took seconds for me to process, which does not come easy for a guy with an all or nothing mentality. i've been werking on that too. twas a rather naive question, and definitely falls in the category of excepting things i can not change. case in point. my new neighbor, a trained killer, vietnam era. a father of 8 by 3 baby momma's. super nice dude, and graciously excepts a hug from me when offered. he appears to me bi-polar, and surly other problems. he has a son, and the only child that lives with him. the son is an extremely violent schizophrenic. they disappear up to 8 days with outdoor dogs howling to be fed. i've gone as far as buying dog food to keep his pit bulls happy. i have to bite my tongue from offering up help to this hot mess situation he is in. i just can't love absolute, sensing further involvement could be hazardous to my or the wife's health. my heart bleeds for the dude, and his kid however. there you go, and thanks for that pearly nugget.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

Stephen Keller /

My heart bleeds for the dogs....keep feeding them if you can, at least they will never attack you. :) people who abuse animals are some of the lowest of the low. :/ if ya need help paying for food for them pm me and I'll send you some $.

Re: Bowling for Columbine, who has seen it?

> Stephen Keller Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > ID OD Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > the burning question that haunts my soul. why is LOVE absolute so

>

> > detrimental to the balance of all that is?

>

> Because ANY view taken to an extreme is unhealthy at best, dangerous at

> worst.

vice is virtue taken to excess.

Want to post in this forum? We'd love to have you join the discussion, but first:

Login or Create Account