Non-IT News Thread
-
Well no, putting them in the heart of cities and being so small would not work well. Real concentration camps are far more effective and much larger than stadiums. And shutting down stadiums would cause more riots in the US than putting people into concentration camps.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Open carry is a means of silently threatening everyone around you. No matter the legality of it, if you are carrying a lethal weapon around me for no reason, you are choosing to threaten me. It's an aggressive act no matter why people say or think they are doing it. It's a means of sending a message to others.Open (or concealed) carry is a means of me defending myself from the thug around the corner (and no, I don't see a thug around every corner)... or defending you from the thug around the corner if he catches you off-guard.
Not only that, I am guaranteed a right by the Constitution to be armed, period. (I won't go into the questionable constitutionality of states banning guns, or requiring this or that before you are issued carry permit). Was the guy parading around with a rifle on his back at the Atlanta airpot an idiot? Sure. Was he legal, if it is the incident I am thinking of, then yes.
Now, I totally, 100% agree with you that people shouldn't do it for political reasons. But there have been reports in the news of people being shot by thieves and gansters, as well as the thieves and gansters themselves being shot for people defending themselves.
I question whether these people walking around waving rifles and pistols in airports and children's ball games ever had anybody teach them gun safety. (Note: i said waving them around, not having them strapped to their back or properly holstered). If they did, I don't think it took. If I see a gun in somebody's hands, I expect them to be getting ready to use it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The same could be said of someone with huge muscles....
Except they never made the clear choice to bring those with them. It's who they are. Owning a gun and choosing to bring it with you is completely different. But if you compared it to a sword, then yes.
But they had to take time to work out and use and build those muscles so the muscles just simply become a part of them. I believe that any external piece of machinery can become like that as well. When is the last time you left your house without your cell phone (Sorry, @scottalanmiller , yours went for a swim, that one doesn't count, lol) ?
I know several people who have carry permits whose guns are just as much a part of them as their cell phone. However, they have been properly trained and know how to use the gun (safely), and don't run around waving it at everybody or shooting the frozen turkey's in Walmart.
-
@dafyre said:
I know several people who have carry permits whose guns are just as much a part of them as their cell phone. However, they have been properly trained and know how to use the gun (safely), and don't run around waving it at everybody or shooting the frozen turkey's in Walmart.
No, but they could. And there is no reason for them to be doing that. When someone takes their phone with them that is not because they feel it is a new limb but because they actively use it. You don't "take your phone" to Walmart, you "use your phone" at Walmart. You check your shopping list, you get directions, you get a call or an email, you see the time.
I think that we have to make comparisons like this, that obviously are so out of context and unreasonable, shows how crazy it is to carry a gun while shopping!! If people feel that carrying a lethal weapon is "a part of them", these are exactly the people I'm concerned with allowing out in public. Why would a gun ever become like that to someone? It's nothing like a phone or a body part.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Why are drones flying over US cities?
Because they are $99 and they give them away as prizes at every conference. Everyone owns a drone. And most people fly them. What are you implying with this question?
Wrong kind of drones.. I'm talking military drones being commissioned by the local police.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
Like this dumbass with his finger over the trigger
eh? He's actually doing the exact correct thing.... the finger is OUT of the trigger well when he's not firing.
He has a gun in public putting people at risk. Nothing here is correct.
Is the gun loaded? Gun safety says we assume it is.
Is the safety on? Gun safety says we assume it is.
Is he pointing it at anybody? No. My brain tells me to keep an eye on him and stay close, just in case he does point it at anybody.
He's posing for a picture... There's nothing wrong with that. If he is posing for a picture with a loaded gun, then he's an idiot.
-
@dafyre said:
If he is posing for a picture with a loaded gun, then he's an idiot.
This is where you lose me - what? so you should only pose for a picture while holding a non loaded weapon? uhhhhh I don't get it.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
Sure, but he's also posing for a picture. That said, I'll agree these people are a bit crazy.. but sadly we need these crazies to help ensure the other side doesn't just take everything from the rest of us.
I disagree. What we actually need is neither of the extremists from either "side" of US politics. Or from any other group for that matter.
I will agree with both of you. We don't need extremists from either side of US Politics... but sadly, there only seems to be one side these days: The government trying to slowly ebb away people's rights (that is another topic).
I think we need the people who aren't afraid to carry their weapons (properly) to protect those of us who may or may not have one from other people that mean to do us harm.
-
@Dashrender said:
Wrong kind of drones.. I'm talking military drones being commissioned by the local police.
I've not seen or heard of any of this. Do you have references? And local police are not the federal government, so what they do would be completely disconnected from the other things you are talking about.
-
@dafyre said:
I think we need the people who aren't afraid to carry their weapons (properly) to protect those of us who may or may not have one from other people that mean to do us harm.
And I think those people are the ones we should be worried about. It's not their job to carry a weapon to protect me, I didn't ask them to and they should not be vigilantes. I do not accept that anyone "should" pick up a weapon and go out in public with the premeditated intent of using said weapon for any purpose, good or evil. Period. End of story.
That's literally vigilantism. And it is a very bad thing. We don't need protection by these people, and they make it impossible for people to know who is and who isn't intended to do them harm. They do more harm than good. They don't carry weapons to protect us no matter what they say, they do it for their own reasons (fear, pride, hate... whatever.)
I can't accept any argument that suggests they are doing it for the good of others. That just makes no sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
but sadly we need these crazies to help ensure the other side doesn't just take everything from the rest of us.
Freedom will never result from living in fear.
Fear profits man nothing. I'm not afraid having backup that is named Smith & Wesson or Glock helps me stay that way.
-
@dafyre said:
I will agree with both of you. We don't need extremists from either side of US Politics... but sadly, there only seems to be one side these days: The government trying to slowly ebb away people's rights (that is another topic).
I don't agree at all. I'd say it's far the other way, I see very little loss of rights and have far more concern from the militant extremists.
-
@dafyre said:
I'm not afraid having backup that is named Smith & Wesson or Glock helps me stay that way.
If you aren't afraid, why do you need the gun? If you feel you need a weapon to remain unafraid, doesn't that suggest you are afraid? Which is exactly my point.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Break it into its own concentration thread?
No, please! It's too early to concentrate! Let's wait until at least after lunch! Lol.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Break it into its own concentration thread?
No, please! It's too early to concentrate! Let's wait until at least after lunch! Lol.
It was after dinner when that was posted
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No, but they could. And there is no reason for them to be doing that. When someone takes their phone with them that is not because they feel it is a new limb but because they actively use it. You don't "take your phone" to Walmart, you "use your phone" at Walmart. You check your shopping list, you get directions, you get a call or an email, you see the time.
Well, actually, if I don't take my phone to Walmart, I can't use it while I am there, can I? (Yes, absurd, I know)... and if they did start shooting at the frozen turkeys, the police would promptly show up and haul their butts off to jail.
I think that we have to make comparisons like this, that obviously are so out of context and unreasonable, shows how crazy it is to carry a gun while shopping!! If people feel that carrying a lethal weapon is "a part of them", these are exactly the people I'm concerned with allowing out in public. Why would a gun ever become like that to someone? It's nothing like a phone or a body part.
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them? And speaking as somebody who was raised around guns, yes a gun can just become a part of you. However, if I am done shopping, and I have a concealed (or not) weapon on me, I can protect myself in the parking lot of Walmart when I am putting my groceries in the car.
I think my next statement sums up the average pro-gunner's mind set: My right to defend myself trumps your fear of my properly carried weapon.
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
If he is posing for a picture with a loaded gun, then he's an idiot.
This is where you lose me - what? so you should only pose for a picture while holding a non loaded weapon? uhhhhh I don't get it.
Why do you need a loaded gun to take a picture? Admittedly, maybe idiot was too strong of a word, but it makes my point. Alas, we can only see so much in a picture, and infer many things that are not there.
-
@dafyre said:
Why do you need a loaded gun to take a picture? Admittedly, maybe idiot was too strong of a word, but it makes my point. Alas, we can only see so much in a picture, and infer many things that are not there.
Same reasons you need one to go to Walmart
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
No, but they could. And there is no reason for them to be doing that. When someone takes their phone with them that is not because they feel it is a new limb but because they actively use it. You don't "take your phone" to Walmart, you "use your phone" at Walmart. You check your shopping list, you get directions, you get a call or an email, you see the time.
Well, actually, if I don't take my phone to Walmart, I can't use it while I am there, can I? (Yes, absurd, I know)... and if they did start shooting at the frozen turkeys, the police would promptly show up and haul their butts off to jail.
The point is.... when I take my phone with me I intend to use it, that's why I took it. And using it is a good thing, for everyone. It's meant to be used.
Carrying a gun in the same context is bad. If you bring a gun into public with the intent to use it, that's where I have a problem. And why would someone bring a gun that they did not intend to use? I don't bring a phone just to have the extra weight with me.
That someone misusing a gun might get arrested doesn't really matter. Someone taking out a phone and hitting people with it would be arrested too.
The difference is, there are many great, legitimate, intended uses of a phone that are safe and good in the public space. Guns have no equivalent. My having a phone doesn't put other people at risk, doesn't scare other people, doesn't incite fear. Anyone having a gun, does.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And I think those people are the ones we should be worried about. It's not their job to carry a weapon to protect me, I didn't ask them to and they should not be vigilantes.
So if a robber is holding a store hostage and pointing his gun at you, you don't want me to disarm him (by shooting him or otherwise) ?
I do not accept that anyone "should" pick up a weapon and go out in public with the premeditated intent of using said weapon for any purpose, good or evil. Period. End of story.
I agree with that premise. But if somebody tries to rob me, and I have a gun, I'm going to use it. That's not premeditated, that is self-defense.
That's literally vigilantism. And it is a very bad thing. We don't need protection by these people, and they make it impossible for people to know who is and who isn't intended to do them harm. They do more harm than good. They don't carry weapons to protect us no matter what they say, they do it for their own reasons (fear, pride, hate... whatever.)
By and large, I agree with you on vigilantism, but offering a helping hand, blade or bullet to a fellow citizen in harm's way does not make you a vigilante.
I can't accept any argument that suggests they are doing it for the good of others. That just makes no sense.
The person I am talking about has a concealed carry permit and is in the wrong place at the wrong time and takes action to prevent harm to someone else. If it was within my power to keep you from getting shot, I would do it.
And when you say vigilantism, I am assuming the person who shot the robber / thief, etc, just vanishes into the night like Batman. I'm not talking about those kind of folks. I am talking about the guy with the carry permit who shoots the robber to keep you from getting hurt, and then stays there, waiting for the police to arrive.
