Conquer Club

DiM wrote:2. free bazookas for everybody.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

DiM wrote:2. free bazookas for everybody.

I like this one.

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:... but it sure seems like you think carrying a gun is dumb and just leads to more problems, which dare I say means you either do not support citizens bearing arms or you think that bearing arms is dumb.

You're way off, so let me explain.

Carrying a gun isn't always dumb because it depends on the situation and the operator.

I've no problems with self-defense and the current gun ownership laws, but I do have problems with people who fantasize about killing someone--which is totally different from someone who exercises situational awareness and plans for potential threats.

The difference between Mr. Situational Awareness and most of the fantastic yahoo's with their freedom pistols is that the former is much more practical and safer, while the latter tends to be an idiot with a loaded gun.

Okay, well I don't know where a legal gun owner fantasizing about killing someone comes from (besides Symm), but I think that the assertion the fantasy exists or is prevalent is ridiculous. The fantasy occurring with someone who has a gun illegally and plans to use it illegally, far less ridiculous.

Someone who uses a gun for defense does not fantasize, someone who uses a gun for offense probably does, and even at that point I would call it a plan, or pre-meditation, not a fantasy lol.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:... but it sure seems like you think carrying a gun is dumb and just leads to more problems, which dare I say means you either do not support citizens bearing arms or you think that bearing arms is dumb.

You're way off, so let me explain.

Carrying a gun isn't always dumb because it depends on the situation and the operator.

I've no problems with self-defense and the current gun ownership laws, but I do have problems with people who fantasize about killing someone--which is totally different from someone who exercises situational awareness and plans for potential threats.

The difference between Mr. Situational Awareness and most of the fantastic yahoo's with their freedom pistols is that the former is much more practical and safer, while the latter tends to be an idiot with a loaded gun.

Okay, well I don't know where a legal gun owner fantasizing about killing someone comes from (besides Symm), but I think that the assertion the fantasy exists or is prevalent is ridiculous. The fantasy occurring with someone who has a gun illegally and plans to use it illegally, far less ridiculous.

Someone who uses a gun for defense does not fantasize, someone who uses a gun for offense probably does, and even at that point I would call it a plan, or pre-meditation, not a fantasy lol.

I can't read people's minds, but I'm surprised you can!

PLAYER57832 wrote: Sure, I heard the story of the lady in Texas who wished she had her gun in her purse instead of her car, but that is part of the point. You are never going to have a gun with you at all times. If you rely on your gun for your protection, then the minute you put it down, it fails. Better to rely on other methods from the start.

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:... but it sure seems like you think carrying a gun is dumb and just leads to more problems, which dare I say means you either do not support citizens bearing arms or you think that bearing arms is dumb.

You're way off, so let me explain.

Carrying a gun isn't always dumb because it depends on the situation and the operator.

I've no problems with self-defense and the current gun ownership laws, but I do have problems with people who fantasize about killing someone--which is totally different from someone who exercises situational awareness and plans for potential threats.

The difference between Mr. Situational Awareness and most of the fantastic yahoo's with their freedom pistols is that the former is much more practical and safer, while the latter tends to be an idiot with a loaded gun.

Okay, well I don't know where a legal gun owner fantasizing about killing someone comes from (besides Symm), but I think that the assertion the fantasy exists or is prevalent is ridiculous. The fantasy occurring with someone who has a gun illegally and plans to use it illegally, far less ridiculous.

Someone who uses a gun for defense does not fantasize, someone who uses a gun for offense probably does, and even at that point I would call it a plan, or pre-meditation, not a fantasy lol.

I can't read people's minds, but I'm surprised you can!

I have heard rap music before....where fantasies are published and distributed

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: Sure, I heard the story of the lady in Texas who wished she had her gun in her purse instead of her car, but that is part of the point. You are never going to have a gun with you at all times. If you rely on your gun for your protection, then the minute you put it down, it fails. Better to rely on other methods from the start.

So because guns don't stop every crime, it's ok to outlaw them? Because that's what you appeal to in your arguments.

Night Strike wrote:People should try to look for other solutions to stopping a crime, but criminals aren't always the most rational people to begin with. By the way, which is easier: training a person in crime-scene negotiations to step-down an assailant, or training a person to use a gun to defend themselves if the time arises. The 2nd is MUCH easier and much more useful.

Night Strike wrote:So, why don't we take away people's right to a trial by jury? Or their right to vote? Or their right to speak? Does everyone deserve a jury? Do people who vote the wrong way deserve to keep voting? Do people who say the wrong things deserve to keep speaking? In ALL of these instances, the answer would be "Yes, they must keep their rights". Yet when it comes to guns, it's not the criminals who should lose access to their guns but the normal, law-abiding citizens who should lose their rights. And yet people think that's perfectly acceptable? No wonder why our rights are in such jeopardy.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
You're way off, so let me explain.

Carrying a gun isn't always dumb because it depends on the situation and the operator.

I've no problems with self-defense and the current gun ownership laws, but I do have problems with people who fantasize about killing someone--which is totally different from someone who exercises situational awareness and plans for potential threats.

The difference between Mr. Situational Awareness and most of the fantastic yahoo's with their freedom pistols is that the former is much more practical and safer, while the latter tends to be an idiot with a loaded gun.

Okay, well I don't know where a legal gun owner fantasizing about killing someone comes from (besides Symm), but I think that the assertion the fantasy exists or is prevalent is ridiculous. The fantasy occurring with someone who has a gun illegally and plans to use it illegally, far less ridiculous.

Someone who uses a gun for defense does not fantasize, someone who uses a gun for offense probably does, and even at that point I would call it a plan, or pre-meditation, not a fantasy lol.

I can't read people's minds, but I'm surprised you can!

I have heard rap music before....where fantasies are published and distributed

Have other forms of music in no way have ever published and distributed fantasies of committing violent acts on someone else?

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Okay, well I don't know where a legal gun owner fantasizing about killing someone comes from (besides Symm), but I think that the assertion the fantasy exists or is prevalent is ridiculous. The fantasy occurring with someone who has a gun illegally and plans to use it illegally, far less ridiculous.

Someone who uses a gun for defense does not fantasize, someone who uses a gun for offense probably does, and even at that point I would call it a plan, or pre-meditation, not a fantasy lol.

I can't read people's minds, but I'm surprised you can!

I have heard rap music before....where fantasies are published and distributed

Have other forms of music in no way have ever published and distributed fantasies of committing violent acts on someone else?

Of course. However, I just started with the one that openly glorifies "pumpin slugs in fools for lookin at me funny" and "poppin caps in asses just for fun" and how "we don't give a F" I better add that I meant gangsta rap.

Sorry Will Smith!

PLAYER57832 wrote:It is, however folks like you who insist that any criticism at all of guns means instant outlawing of all guns that prevent a lot of honest and NEEDED discussion.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So, why don't we take away people's right to a trial by jury? Or their right to vote? Or their right to speak? Does everyone deserve a jury? Do people who vote the wrong way deserve to keep voting? Do people who say the wrong things deserve to keep speaking? In ALL of these instances, the answer would be "Yes, they must keep their rights". Yet when it comes to guns, it's not the criminals who should lose access to their guns but the normal, law-abiding citizens who should lose their rights. And yet people think that's perfectly acceptable? No wonder why our rights are in such jeopardy.

I have no idea to whom these comments are intended, but it has nothing to do with anything I have said.. at all.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:It is, however folks like you who insist that any criticism at all of guns means instant outlawing of all guns that prevent a lot of honest and NEEDED discussion.

Then what discussions need to take place? The fact that the government needs to stop handing guns to drug dealers and other criminals? The fact that the government needs to stop trying to punish those who have never even committed a crime? The fact that where guns are outlawed, the criminals still carry guns while the law-abiding citizens are the only ones who don't?

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So, why don't we take away people's right to a trial by jury? Or their right to vote? Or their right to speak? Does everyone deserve a jury? Do people who vote the wrong way deserve to keep voting? Do people who say the wrong things deserve to keep speaking? In ALL of these instances, the answer would be "Yes, they must keep their rights". Yet when it comes to guns, it's not the criminals who should lose access to their guns but the normal, law-abiding citizens who should lose their rights. And yet people think that's perfectly acceptable? No wonder why our rights are in such jeopardy.

I have no idea to whom these comments are intended, but it has nothing to do with anything I have said.. at all.

They were directed to the general topic and people opposed to guns.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
I can't read people's minds, but I'm surprised you can!

I have heard rap music before....where fantasies are published and distributed

Have other forms of music in no way have ever published and distributed fantasies of committing violent acts on someone else?

Of course. However, I just started with the one that openly glorifies "pumpin slugs in fools for lookin at me funny" and "poppin caps in asses just for fun" and how "we don't give a F" I better add that I meant gangsta rap.

Sorry Will Smith!

So why did you highlight one form of music while you were aware that other forms of music can do the same thing?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
I have heard rap music before....where fantasies are published and distributed

Have other forms of music in no way have ever published and distributed fantasies of committing violent acts on someone else?

Of course. However, I just started with the one that openly glorifies "pumpin slugs in fools for lookin at me funny" and "poppin caps in asses just for fun" and how "we don't give a F" I better add that I meant gangsta rap.

Sorry Will Smith!

So why did you highlight one form of music while you were aware that other forms of music can do the same thing?

Thanks for not responding.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Johnny Cash's "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" doesn't equal "openly glorifies hurting people"?

Surely, you're bright enough to know that other types of music do "openly glorify" killing people.

Or maybe you're blinded by your own prejudice.

The later option could explain your allegedly weak trolling.

Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet. Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness.

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Johnny Cash's "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" doesn't equal "openly glorifies hurting people"?

Surely, you're bright enough to know that other types of music do "openly glorify" killing people.

Or maybe you're blinded by your own prejudice.

The later option could explain your allegedly weak trolling.

You have brought this so far off topic, and your insults are not appreciated.

I submitted twice already there are other kinds of music that openly glorify killing people. If you can't accept my admission and continue to pretend I did not make the admission, then there really is no point continuing the conversation with you.

Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet. Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness.

Who's antagonizing who?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Johnny Cash's "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" doesn't equal "openly glorifies hurting people"?

BigBallinStalin wrote:In short, troll harder, Phatscotty.

Woodruff wrote:

HapSmo19 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

HapSmo19 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Now, would you care to respond to the actual points that I've made...?

You made actual points?

Someday, you might get moved into the class where they actually think about what they read, then you can join us in recognizing actual points.

OK. So help me out here...

Boil your points down to where I can understand them cuz they seem more like insult-laden opinion to me. Thanks.

Of course opinion is involved...it's unavoidable on this subject. And yes, there's a fair number of insults regarding Phatscotty...my complete lack of respect for him leads me to believe that's what he deserves...but those insults don't in any way alter the points I was making. As for my points, it would help if you'd TRY to actually read them (it's not difficult, as I do use English), but here goes:

First post: I strongly support the Second Amendment and I do believe it is important. That being said, the idea that "having a holstered gun at your side" is somehow going to make you any more safe is a fallacy. If anything, you are presenting yourself as a target for more aggressive initial force, much more likely to end your life. Even if someone has a knife to your throat, you're more likely to extract yourself though martial arts techniques than you are by reaching for your gun. At that point, actual skill with your gun is really irrelevant.

Next post: In response to Phatscotty's statement that "if you don't want a gun, then hire security to follow you around 24/7", I pointed out that you would do yourself a lot more good by simply being aware of your surroundings to avoid trouble in the first place, rather than having to extract yourself from that trouble after the fact.

Next post: I stated that having found yourself in the situation of being mugged, your chances of survival are drastically higher by simply handing over your wallet rather than risk your life trying to keep it. Not the happiest alternative, certainly...but I don't tend to have so much of value in my wallet that it outweighs how much I value my life.

Next post: I pointed out that the statement you were attempting to use as a comparison to mine was completely inaccurate.

Next post: I responded to Phatscotty's attempt at portraying me as some sort of a pussy by pointing out that I undoubtedly understand more about how to handle oneself in a dangerous situation than he does, thanks to the training I've received.

Next post: I express regret that Phatscotty doesn't value his life more than the contents of his wallet.

Next post: I point out that Phatscotty goes to great lengths to ignore and obfuscate perfectly valid points against his statements. I also point out that he appears to have the innate intelligence of a plant.

Next post: I call Phatscotty a hypocrite.

Next post: I point out that Phatscotty's attempt to hide the escalation of violence in regard to someone making the attempt to protect themselves by pulling out a gun doesn't even make basic sense. I also point to his anecdotal evidence as anecdotal evidence and re-iterate that he seems to believe his life is not worth more than the contents of his wallet at that given time. I also tell you to start using a bit of reading comprehension skills, because I know you must have them in the deep, dark recesses of your capabilities, if you'd only try just a little bit.

This final post: I treat you like the child you seem to want to be by walking you through a very simple reading lesson.

HapSmo19 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Johnny Cash's "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" doesn't equal "openly glorifies hurting people"?

Woodruff wrote:So HapSmo, is your lack of response the proof that you were simply trolling?