The way of the gun... United States - Page 4 - Eternal Allegiance

IamA-BFG · 05-18-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stinger
I really don't think guns are needed to defend yourself. Most people don't even know how to handle a gun. Criminals do. You think you can outrun a criminal with a hell of a lot more experience with guns than you do? Think again. Firing a gun is easy. Hitting the target is another. It took me 6 months to become a good shooter, and I practiced just about every day.

.........

Actually, if you play certain types of arcade games routinely, you can get quite good at using guns

(The type where you HAVE to line up the eye with the crosshairs type thing on the gun, and have to hit EXACTLY, or a hit isn't counted). You will know you did it when you can successfully play VERY WELL at the game WITHOUT having to use only one eye. In other words, without using the crosshairs

('cause you can just "feel" it

)

PapRoach123 · 05-18-2003, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geiri
yeah..specially that Its ******* exspensive, here you really just have to pay for the books and registration.. so most of it is just paid by the government..

I mean why not ?

When you have more educated people.. then it puts the country in a better situation, and probably makes it more rich.. So why not pay for education with the tax money ?

They are actually right now working on this more here in Iceland.. they want to spend more money on schools.. so after few years you don't have to pay for books or anything.. just 100% paid by the government, and also change the education system for grammarschools and universities, so most/all students will do their work on laptops...

But I mean nothing is for sure.. depends who will be in control the next few years... But I´m sure it will get better in the next few years... the idea is that everybody should get the same opportunity to get a GOOD education... doesn't matter if you have 1000000$ or 1$ in your bank account.. should have the same right as everybody else to study and get a good life

Yes exactly. Although I do think they should at least pay some money for it. Because otherwise, you'll get less motivated students along with you in class who can go and ruin them since they don't give a shit about school, though have to go there because their parents said so.. I think if they have to pay for it, they'll be more motivated to take the classes more serious. Over where I live we got quite a couple of spoiled brats who do nothing but disturb the classes and stuff like that. No fun I tell ya.

Quote:

Originally posted by LovesBritneyForeverG
Actually, if you play certain types of arcade games routinely, you can get quite good at using guns (The type where you HAVE to line up the eye with the crosshairs type thing on the gun, and have to hit EXACTLY, or a hit isn't counted). You will know you did it when you can successfully play VERY WELL at the game WITHOUT having to use only one eye. In other words, without using the crosshairs ('cause you can just "feel" it)

That won't work because the weight of the "toys" are never equal to the actual thing, thus screwing up your balancing skills. No gun is the same, especially not when we're talking about arcade games. You will have to learn to adjust to the gun and when you do, it will be harder to re-adjust to another one. So when you're used to a video game, you're gonna be surprised at how much you're gonna suck at the actual thing.

Rigeri · 05-18-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stinger
Yes exactly. Although I do think they should at least pay some money for it. Because otherwise, you'll get less motivated students along with you in class who can go and ruin them since they don't give a shit about school, though have to go there because their parents said so.. I think if they have to pay for it, they'll be more motivated to take the classes more serious. Over where I live we got quite a couple of spoiled brats who do nothing but disturb the classes and stuff like that. No fun I tell ya

I kinda agree.. but still think It should be free.. I mean

Lets say your parents kick you out the day you become 18 (or whatever the age is in your area)... and you have 0$.. and every money you get, you spend on food/apartment... then I don't think Its fair that you can't educate yourself, just because you don't have extra money for school books and stuff like that..

Or atleast make it free for special group of people.. so if you do live in a house with parents.. and even have a job yourself.. then you have to pay for the books or something.. but if you are just really poor.. then you can apply to get it totally free..

I just don't think Its fair that how much money you have, affect opportunities you could get in life.. Specially if its because of your parents, you can't choose your parents ya know.. unfair if how much money they have, affect how healthy you are and how good education you can get

But I agree that Its not fair that kids are going just for their parents.. Its annoying seeing people in my school playing video games all day in their laptops, while the government pays ALOT for their "education".. So yes it annoys me that they are wasting tax money, but their are other ways than making everybody pay for it

IamA-BFG · 05-18-2003, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stinger

That won't work because the weight of the "toys" are never equal to the actual thing, thus screwing up your balancing skills. No gun is the same, especially not when we're talking about arcade games. You will have to learn to adjust to the gun and when you do, it will be harder to re-adjust to another one. So when you're used to a video game, you're gonna be surprised at how much you're gonna suck at the actual thing.

Actually, the particular game I am thinking of (House of the Dead 2) HAS a very large gun and it is heavy considering its purpose (as for just a game). I think they did that on purpose to simulate a real gun

Plus, you can't just start off playing the game by holding the gun near the screen and shooting..........you will hit NOTHING and die in like 3 seconds

A beginner at that game will have to squint with one eye and line up the sight on the gun...........after a while it is possible to get where you don't need the sight

Chewie · 05-19-2003, 01:08 AM

Being biased maybe, but once again I like Australia's university system - you gain entrance to a course based on your high school results, and you don't have to pay any fees up-front, but rather you get a loan from the government - which you don't have to pay back until you start earning a certain amount per week.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kat
Guns aren't the problem. Would people be happier if there were more stabbings than shootings? Or would they campaign to ban knives too? Murder is murder regardless of the method.

Michael Moore's movie wasn't really anti-gun, but rather a poke at the alarmist culture in America and the cultural attitude of using violence to solve problems. Another criticism i would have is the "nanny culture" in America or blaming anything other than yourself for your problems. People blame the gun and not the murderer. Another example would be blaming McDonalds because you are obese. The media also participates by overhyping things such as school shootings by turning killers into celebrities.

Just because you have a well-armed civilian populace doesn't mean that people will go gangbusters. Even if by some miracle all guns were banned, people would just get more creative in their endeavors to kill. You can't ban everything. Besides, in my experience, police are pretty worthless. And unless you have one stationed at your side at all times, then they are the crime scene pickup. And if i choose to have a weapon for protection then i should make the choice ,not the goverment. Banning guns doesn't make the peril any less. Right now there is a serial killer running around in my area who is kidnapping and stabbing women to death. You don't need a gun to be a scary criminal.

Banning guns would lead to less serious violence though.. as other posts have stated it's far easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. And without guns, there won't be mass shootings, or shootouts which harm people not involved. Not saying it will totally reduce crime, and yes other forms of murder will go up, but it would not be near the same amount as with guns so readily available.

Defending yourself should be about common sense rather than needing to carry a gun around - stay in groups or avoid going out at all through dangerous times/places, have good security around the house etc.

IamA-BFG · 05-20-2003, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewie
Being biased maybe, but once again I like Australia's university system - you gain entrance to a course based on your high school results, and you don't have to pay any fees up-front, but rather you get a loan from the government - which you don't have to pay back until you start earning a certain amount per week.

Banning guns would lead to less serious violence though.. as other posts have stated it's far easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. And without guns, there won't be mass shootings, or shootouts which harm people not involved. Not saying it will totally reduce crime, and yes other forms of murder will go up, but it would not be near the same amount as with guns so readily available.

Defending yourself should be about common sense rather than needing to carry a gun around - stay in groups or avoid going out at all through dangerous times/places, have good security around the house etc.

So mass knife fights, people bleeding all over from gashing knife wounds, etc is better than guns???

Rigeri · 05-20-2003, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LovesBritneyForeverG
So mass knife fights, people bleeding all over from gashing knife wounds, etc is better than guns???

His point is that not as many people would die.. And he's right

IamA-BFG · 05-20-2003, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geiri
His point is that not as many people would die.. And he's right

Let me ask you this.......would you rather be cut up really badly, eyes gauged-out, etc......because someone was trying to kill you with a knife (and then hurt really REALLY bad and not be able to do anything about it........just slowly die there), or would you rather a quick bullet and a quick death, and that's that?

I'm not saying you should prefer to be killed,----you shouldn't. ...but the point is that a killer isn't going to give you a choice one way or the other. He/she is going to use the weapons on hand, and if all the person has access to are more painful weapons, then he/she will use those more painful weapons.

On the other hand, if you had a gun to protect yourself, you could shoot the intruder, and not have to deal with any of that

Rigeri · 05-20-2003, 06:51 AM

well Its worth it if less people die

The us could safe like 5-10 thousand lifes a year.. and you are saying It wouldn't be worth it, because few people would die slower ?

Thats fucked up

Dirty Drink · 05-20-2003, 05:39 PM

dayum, that's shi* is freaking me out, just last year we had to evacuate cuz our teacher found a gun hidden away....but no-one claimed it and we were gettin' tailed for a good three moths all of us, they watched all of us like eagles watching their prey!!!!! yeah that's creepy, we're disturbed over here in america, sheesh, ya'll overseas got it good