Home Game Gun Etiquette And Other Decisions

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Oops, does that mean I'm from the least polite society in the world?

Dutch people are very tall on average so they don't need to carry a big gun to compensate.

[Chris E 0]

Well, in Australia guns have been completely banned for slightly more than 10 years and day-to-day not much has changed. Crime is still high in some places, low in others. But obviously our population is different and our population centres are further apart and smaller. Melbourne, for example, can be a great place or a terrible place.

I find this very, very surprising considering I own a gun and live in Australia.

[chgocubs99 0]

LOL at this post...... Have you ever thought of becoming a politician ? You'll make a very good one in my opinion, because politician may take 10 minutes to say something that could take 10 seconds, but usually they have a point...... Well sometimes.....

Be prepared to get told you "lack understanding words". This is something the Off Topic people excel at. They make a complicated post using a variety of rather complex sentence structures to sound intelligent. Like you said, they usually have a point. His post here had no point at all.You rebut said point, and they make some advanced, inside joke that may or may not be funny to a few people, usually while insulting your ability to understand, without responding to your point at all.In this case, there is no rebuttal, since he made no point, yet his response remains they same.It's why I usually ignore them. edit: My use of proper nouns here leaves a lot to be desired, too lazy to go back and re-edit.

[Elo and AG 0]

Be prepared to get told you "lack understanding words".

I'm PREPARED.......

[Balloon guy 158]

no, because you completely misread his post. he drew no correlation between gun ownership and being poor.

He's right, it was Obama that made that correlation

[Steve Holt 0]

QFMFTGun control is funny. If you outlaw guns the only people that will have guns then is the police and the criminals. Like BG said, all the good guys will turn them in, all the bad guys dont. And for those that say "That is what the cops are for, is to protect you... blah blah blah"... NOT TRUEsays the supreme court. My father-in-law is a sheriff and I shoot at the same range that the Portland police, SWAT team and the county sheriff's office shoots at. I would much rather own a gun then have them protect me, 80% are HORRIBLE SHOTS.Im sure some of you also heard this story, but for those who believe in the police to always protect you, read this. Specifically read the part where they talk about what happened, 3rd paragraph down I think...Now, after saying all that I am going to freak out when/if the government outlaws guns. Probably not, I dont think it would be the end of the world. I think we would just end up like Britain or Australia...

LOL at gun thread in a poker forum! This place is awesome. I can honestly say I love guns. Really! I.LOVE.GUNSEver since watching movies like Rambo when I was a kid I've always wanted to shoot. Maybe it's because I had no dad. Who knows!?Come to think of it. I'm probably a good argument for why we shouldn't be allowed to have guns. GUNBAD: I'm pro guns (DUH!) but seebolded is not quite accurate. Yes Places like Canada only have guns for cops and robbers. But the states isn't an equalizer. The bad guys just carry better guns. You could steal Chris Bosh with a revolver in Toronto. Americans are robbing $1-2 poker games with better guns! GUNGOOD: I do think having guns create more gun problems but no rocket science there. I bet boxers get knocked out more often too! Shooting is a sport and hobby. Last time I checked there was Olympic events with guns. Presence of guns definitely deter problems. Should everyone be allowed to have a gun on a plane? Talk amongst yourselves.STEVE HOLT!

[AmScray 355]

So Canadians don't understand because we don't live in a society where people routinely kill each other (with handguns or otherwise) for very little reason?That's the point I was making. I haven't had a point in my life where I was so scared for my life that I felt like a handgun, or any other self defense mechanism was necessary. And I've actually spent a decent amount of time in the USA.

OK, so you haven't ever experienced a situation where you've felt a need for a defensive implement of any kind. Lucky you.I certainlly have- a few times when I was younger and one specific time when I was an adult. Do you think my freedoms to defend my home and person as I see fit should be predicated on the fact that you seem to have lived a sheltered life?I mean, I'm not going to seriously advocate that the general social condition in the US is the same as Canada. You're definitely a very peaceful (and homogeneous) place with an entirely different history than we have... What I will argue is that Canadians who think what makes us "different" as far as violence is concerned is the presence of firearms, well, they're retarded. When I lived in Vermont, I never felt a need for a defensive firearm in spite of the fact that I was allowed to carry a concealed handgun at any time without a permit.Now that I spend a great deal of my time in Chicago- where firearms are virtually banned (handguns totally and many long guns as well) I most certainlly feel the need to defend myself, given the places and areas that I frequent out of necessity. That you live in Canada and "feel" the way you do about firearm rights isn't as much a commentary on the gun issue at large as much as it is a continuation of your own personal life experiences (or lack thereof) having lived in a place like Canada. If I was raised in a place like Canada, I may think like that too. Who knows. You just have to understand that your opinion doesn't have some universal validity that stands true wherever it's applied.

[AmScray 355]

LOL at this post...... Have you ever thought of becoming a politician ? You'll make a very good one in my opinion, because politician may take 10 minutes to say something that could take 10 seconds, but usually they have a point...... Well sometimes.....

Someone already said that. Then you basically said the same thing after him. This means that either you're both right, you're a weak-minded "follower" type or you're both tards.Wanna guess which one it is?I'll give you a hint; you both aren't right.

[chgocubs99 0]

Be prepared to get told you "lack understanding words". This is something the Off Topic people excel at. They make a complicated post using a variety of rather complex sentence structures to sound intelligent. Like you said, they usually have a point. His post here had no point at all.You rebut said point, and they make some advanced, inside joke that may or may not be funny to a few people, usually while insulting your ability to understand, without responding to your point at all.In this case, there is no rebuttal, since he made no point, yet his response remains they same.It's why I usually ignore them. edit: My use of proper nouns here leaves a lot to be desired, too lazy to go back and re-edit.

Someone already said that. Then you basically said the same thing after him. This means that either you're both right, or both tards.Wanna guess which one it is?I'll give you a hint; you both aren't right.

I would think you could do better than hoping I would fall for your lame level. Like actually posting something with substance...obviously silly of me to think that.

[AmScray 355]

Be prepared to get told you "lack understanding words". This is something the Off Topic people excel at. They make a complicated post using a variety of rather complex sentence structures to sound intelligent. Like you said, they usually have a point. His post here had no point at all.You rebut said point, and they make some advanced, inside joke that may or may not be funny to a few people, usually while insulting your ability to understand, without responding to your point at all.In this case, there is no rebuttal, since he made no point, yet his response remains they same.It's why I usually ignore them. edit: My use of proper nouns here leaves a lot to be desired, too lazy to go back and re-edit.

If you didn't understand the point I was making in that post, then it's most certainlly a "you" issue. The point is pretty clear. You're basically running around shrieking that I'm not posting anything substantive, which just isn't the case. I am, but it's apparent that you just don't seem to "get it" and need things written in short, easy to digest sound bytes as most people of a certain IQ threshold do.

[chgocubs99 0]

If you didn't understand the point I was making in that post, then it's most certainlly a "you" issue. The point is pretty clear. You're basically running around shrieking that I'm not posting anything substantive, which just isn't the case. I am, but it's apparent that you just don't seem to "get it" and need things written in short, easy to digest sound bytes as most people of a certain IQ threshold do.

Be prepared to get told you "lack understanding words". - CHECK This is something the Off Topic people excel at. They make a complicated post using a variety of rather complex sentence structures to sound intelligent. Like you said, they usually have a point. His post here had no point at all. - NOT PRESENTYou rebut said point, and they make some advanced, inside joke that may or may not be funny to a few people, usually while insulting your ability to understand, without responding to your point at all. - CHECKIn this case, there is no rebuttal, since he made no point, yet his response remains they same.

Bro, you have yet to say anything in this entire thread...it's just generally what you do. You post just to post and be disruptive in the threads, not really for any reason, just to sort of do it. You're like the guy who doesn't really know why he's raising, but does it anyway because it seems like it may be fun to raise, and then after the fact looks for some type of reason to defend his actions (or in your case, statements)You're posting personal examples as though that has any relevance towards the subject, while making geographical stereotypes that rival your usual racist views. I worked on 70th and Western for several months and never felt like I'd have been "safer" with a gun. You're personal preference to potentially have one has no significance based on the fact that you've been in some rough areas, and neither does the fact that someone that lives in Canada potentially hasn't.Hopefully you're impressing either your OT buddies or yourself with your continual pointless diatritbes, I'll just pray you take it back there forum so I don't have to see it as much.

[AmScray 355]

Bro, you have yet to say anything in this entire thread...it's just generally what you do. You post just to post and be disruptive in the threads, not really for any reason, just to sort of do it. You're like the guy who doesn't really know why he's raising, but does it anyway because it seems like it may be fun to raise.You're posting personal examples as though that has any relevance towards the subject, while making geographical stereotypes that rival your usual racist views. I worked on 70th and Western for several months and never felt like I'd have been "safer" with a gun. You're personal preference to potentially have one has no significance based on the fact that you've been in some rough areas, and neither does the fact that someone that lives in Canada potentially hasn't.Hopefully you're impressing either your OT buddies or yourself with your continual pointless diatritbes, I'll just pray you take it back there forum so I don't have to see it as much.

*sigh*You're one of those internet people who spends more time discussing the discussion rather than discussing the actual issue and furthering the discourse with productive dialog. That's a classic leftist trait... When you can't nail the facts, spin the discussion around in circles until the topic of discussion becomes the discussion itself. I won't waste my time doing that. It's stupid. If you don't get what I was saying, then OK. In reading your posts, it's pretty clear "why" you don't get it. I also love how you try to intimate "racism" somewhere in here. What have I said here that is "racist"? Pathetic conversational tactic that people who have nothing to add fire as a parting salvo. "YEAH, WELL, YOU'RE RACIST!!"And when you tried to make a point here....

You're posting personal examples as though that has any relevance towards the subject, while making geographical stereotypes that rival your usual racist views. I worked on 70th and Western for several months and never felt like I'd have been "safer" with a gun. You're personal preference to potentially have one has no significance based on the fact that you've been in some rough areas, and neither does the fact that someone that lives in Canada potentially hasn't.

... I'm reminded why I should be thankful that I got a private Jesuit primary education and not a Chicago public one. That made very little sense.

[chgocubs99 0]

*sigh*You're one of those internet people who spends more time discussing the discussion rather than discussing the actual issue and furthering the discourse with productive dialog. That's a classic leftist trait... When you can't nail the facts, spin the discussion around in circles until the topic of discussion becomes the discussion itself. I won't waste my time doing that. It's stupid. If you don't get what I was saying, then OK. Keep thinking that.I also love how you try to intimate "racism" somewhere in here. What have I said here that is "racist"? Pathetic conversational tactic that people who have nothing to add fire as a parting salvo. "YEAH, WELL, YOU'RE RACIST!!"And when you tried to make a point here....... I'm reminded why I should be thankful that I got a private Jesuit education and not a Chicago public one. That made very little sense.

I'm torn between responding as you would, by saying "if you don't understand what I was saying there, then you aren't very educated" and actually responding to your sentiments. The problem, again, is that you really didn't make an argument. You just attempted to insult me (in this case, with inaccurate and borderline laughable facts). How can I avoid discussing the discussion when you CONSTANTLY go the route of "when you tried to make a point, you come off as an uneducated jackass" instead of, oh, I don't know, actually arguing your point?Obviously you have said nothing racist in this thread, but your past has clearly dictated that I take it into consideration when considering your thought process. I can't ignore the reasons that Bush went into Iraq if he were trying to sell me on invading North Korea.It's obvious you're a smart guy, probably smarter than me. It's a shame you can't use that intelligence to forumlate intellgent discussion instead of resorting to retorts that an 8th grader could come up with, only using bigger words.

[Steve Holt 0]

You post just to post and be disruptive in the threads, not really for any reason, just to sort of do it.

Is that bad?STEVE HOLT!

[AmScray 355]

The problem, again, is that you really didn't make an argument.

Everything you're saying hinges on this, right here, and this is what you're wrong about. Maybe go read the 'post of contention' again. And again. Then, think about it. After tumbling it around in your gray matter for a while, if you're still convinced that there wasn't a "point" contained anywhere therein, OK.Here we find ourselves returning to this being entirely a "you" thing.

[Steve Holt 0]

Everything you're saying hinges on this, right here, and this is what you're wrong about. Maybe go read the 'post of contention' again. And again. Then, think about it. After tumbling it around in your gray matter for a while, if you're still convinced that there wasn't a "point" contained anywhere therein, OK.Here we find ourselves returning to this being entirely a "you" thing.

Dammit, I thought I was annoying. Just post 2-3 sentences and expand on what you meant. Then you can't be said to say nothing. If you can't do that then you said nothing. At least argue properly people.

[AmScray 355]

Dammit, I thought I was annoying. Just post 2-3 sentences and expand on what you meant. Then you can't be said to say nothing. If you can't do that then you said nothing. At least argue properly people.

[Steve Holt 0]

chgocubs 1AmScray 0

[chgocubs99 0]

OK let me take another look.LOL @ this entire thread. I'm in way too late to really start attacking the anti-gun types (since so much of their irrational BS has gone unchallenged thus far- I always do get a kick out of their pathetic, hypothetical scenario driven rationales ), so I'll leave that to those who have already been playing along at home. -- Insulting people that have posted so far. Standard.I remember when I was a little kid, my dad owned a pretty big property in Wisconsin. Most of it was wooded- we had to go up every year or so and clear the hunting trails for the guys to use. We used chainsaws and machetes. So, we'd just returned back from trail clearing and my dad tasked me with unloading the tools back into the garage. The neighbor kid rode up on his bike as I was unloading to see if I wanted to play.Yeah, sure, after I'm done unloading the truck... Reach in, grab a couple of the machetes and start making my way to the garage to hang them up. The kid was absolutely floored- he'd never seen anything like that before. It was, like, a giant sword or something! He asked if he could see it- I said no. He asked what we were doing with them and if they were "against the law". Again, no. He theorized how well they could be used to kill a person. OK, whatever, I gotta go put these damn tools away. See ya later for football.That was the first time in my life when I realized how much impact "understanding" something on a realistic, practical level could have on a persons outlook on any given issue. This kid was a pretty smart kid- not nearly as smart as I was, but not exactly a tard, yet to him, those machetes- which I viewed with great disdain, being the goddamned tools that I had to bust my ass using to clear trails- were like something from a totally different world... -- Told a story about your past. Generalized one person to an entire thought process for an entire race of people. You thought of something as a tool, he thought of it as a weapon. Invigorating...I'd love to see what I'm missing here. Share with me again how a gun can be used as a tool in any way at all? Anyway, as a convicted felon who earned my stripe beating someones ass in a situation where I intentionally forwent the use of a firearm and as a result, lost my rights to legally own guns forever, I don't know how good an advocate I am for this position, but as best I can tell, I'm still entitled to LOL at the anti's. So much of what they say isn't rooted in thought, reason or understanding but rather, comes from that same place in the weak human mind as the young neighborhood boy who was once simultaneously entranced, fearful and ignorant about the presence of a lawn tool. Went out of your way to talk about your were a convicted felon. Your last sentence actually has some substance and thought behind it...I'll give you more credit now than I did earlier. It goes back to the fundamental problem that a gun isn't a tool in any capcity, though. While you consider that thought process ignorant, your story revolved around an actual tool. It's comparing apples and oranges. There's a reason Canadians, Europeans and people from Chicago feel as they do about firearms. It's because firearms are a right that, by in large, they've never really enjoyed for themselves. They don't understand. They just know what they see on television and apparently, they have yet to figure out that what they see on TV isn't exactly emblematic of the entire picture. To them, firearms are just as foreign a notion as Amsterdam's concept of legalized weed is to a Kansas Baptist. Finished off with yet another apples and oranges comparison, while insinuating that people from different geogrophies don't understand based on their location. This is the weakest and most pointless sentence not only in your agrument, but in the entire thread. It's like someone questions Bush's motives for going into Iraq and his response "Well, there's some bad stuff there, can't you see?" while completely dodging the question.

[AmScray 355]

-- Told a story about your past. Generalized one person to an entire thought process for an entire race of people. You thought of something as a tool, he thought of it as a weapon. Invigorating...I'd love to see what I'm missing here. Share with me again how a gun can be used as a tool in any way at all?

Easy. Ask anyone who lives in rural areas, or anyone who has ever felt the need to defend themselves.A gun, in its very essence, is a "tool". There's just so much mythology and lore that surround them that people like yourself- people who are absolutely ignroant about them in every single way- cannot fathom a prospective "good use for guns" in your minds.To you, a gun is simply something you've seen bad guys use on TV. To a kid in Montana, it's something entirely different.Since his understanding of a firearm comes from experience and knowledge while yours comes from television and hysteria, his opinion (Or anyone like him) > your opinion (or anyone like you), as far as its validity.

Went out of your way to talk about your were a convicted felon. Your last sentence actually has some substance and thought behind it...I'll give you more credit now than I did earlier. It goes back to the fundamental problem that a gun isn't a tool in any capcity, though. While you consider that thought process ignorant, your story revolved around an actual tool. It's comparing apples and oranges.

See above. This whole idea that "a gun isn't a tool" is completely invalid and your thinking that way absolutely addresses the core issue of what I'm talking about. It isn't that a gun "isn't a tool". It's that you're a person from Chicago who can't conceive of one being used in a lawful manner, or, your own life experiences haven't ever presented you with a situation that might nessecitate the use of a firearm in a non anti-personnel way. Again, SO much of this is rooted in the "Chicago" aspect of your opinion.

Finished off with yet another apples and oranges comparison, while insinuating that people from different geogrophies don't understand based on their location. This is the weakest and most pointless sentence not only in your argument, but in the entire thread. It's like someone questions Bush's motives for going into Iraq and his response "Well, there's some bad stuff there, can't you see?" while completely dodging the question.

LOL @ your attempt at an analogy with the Bush/Iraq thing. Massive fail.Anyway, yeah, people from different regions have different understandings of different things, particularly something like firearms where one region is going to be far more knowledgeable than the other, simply because people from that region own and use them while people from the other region only know of them what they see on television.The problem here is that you obviously had a lot of teachers who put a lot of value on your having an "opinion" without bothering to emphasize that there should be something substantive to back it up.It's OK if you don't like guns or if you don't want to own them or whatever fairlyland delusions you happen to suffer from. It's no big shock that someone from Chicago (my own adopted home town) thinks that way. What isn't OK is your moronic assertion that a gun has no purposeful use whatsoever. This isn't you expressing your "opinion". This is you showing the world that you've spent your entire life on one, small area with an understating of this issue that's equally narrow.

[mhoward29 0]

I <3 cubs...

[AmScray 355]

I <3 cubs...

Right. And so would a poster from San Francisco CA, NYC NY, Madison WI, Portland, OR, Toronto, Montreal or any other "deeply blue" urban area.Portland is actually a cool town with some great qualities. I spent a large portion of my life there, ironically enough, but it's Tie-Dyeville USA and peoples opinions on anything that involves individual culpability (like a firearm) is more than likely going to be way left of center. This isn't to say that there aren't pro gun rights people in Portland and anti-gun rights people in Montana, it's just that there is a definite "theme" on the gun issue that bears a direct corollary to those regions political bends.

[mhoward29 0]

Right. And so would a poster from Berkley CA, NYC NY, Madison WI, Portland, OR, Toronto, Montreal or any other "deeply blue" urban area.Portland is actually a cool town. I spent a large portion of my life there, ironically enough, but it's Tie-Dyeville USA and peoples opinions on anything that involves individual culpability (like a firearm) is more than likely going to be way left of center.

Portland = liberals, hippy type. The rest of the state = conservatives. I actually live outside of Portland by about 30minutes in the boonies. I own lots of firearms and I enjoy that freedom.Oh and if you think Portland is tie-dyeville you should go to Eugene, OR. Hippie capital of the world, it has overtaken San Fran.

[chgocubs99 0]

I'll reread that post to see if there's anything to it tomorrow after I've had some sleep.But on the surface, I don't see much there. You want me to ask someone from a rural area, I'm asking you. Or anyone else from there. You haven't given me one use a gun has as a tool. You won't be able to though, because there isn't one. Could it be used in a lawful manner? Sure, it could come up. Going back to what I said before though, I could also wear a protective suit every day in case I happen to get bit by an infectious mosquito, and 1 out of 10,000 times it may come in handy...doesn't mean it really makes any sense. And that may not be the best analogy in the world, but I think it's pretty strong. And again, can you point out reasons why besides saying things are "epic failures"? Remember, I have a Chicago public education and all...I need things explained to me like an 8 year old.

[AmScray 355]

Portland = liberals, hippy type. The rest of the state = conservatives. I actually live outside of Portland by about 30minutes in the boonies. I own lots of firearms and I enjoy that freedom.Oh and if you think Portland is tie-dyeville you should go to Eugene, OR. Hippie capital of the world, it has overtaken San Fran.

The political stratification of urban vs. suburban and rural areas is at the core of this issue and many others. I was pretty young when I lived in Portland, but I do distinctly remember Combat Corner on Burniside and "Armadillo Arms" in Beaverton run by this crazy survivalist dude named Marty who had a pretty awesome inventory of mean looking guns and big "50 Year Shelf Life" cans of legumes. Things have definitely changed. There was always a hippie "element" to the city, but back then, it wasn't anything like it is now. where they've completely taken over.