PDA

View Full Version : Violence??


Lance201
14th Feb 2000, 01:12 PM
Hi,

I´ve just read in an germen newsgroup (www.heise.de) that military styled games are dangerous for younger people because may be they will become violent in real... . A more "comicstyle" FPS isn´t that much dangerous in this way... And Soldiers of Fortune will not be released in germany because of this reason. What do the inf-community think about that?? I always discuss this problem with my girlfirend becuse she also things that people shouldn´t play games where you shoot each other in a realistic way...

LCPL TWENTY

Dragon
14th Feb 2000, 03:55 PM
I think it all comes down to morals and how you are raised. If you are raised right as a child you are not going to go out shoting people. I have played video games for almost 17 years and I have never killed anyone. So it's alot of bull, just raise your kid right and there is no problem.

------------------
People do not fear Dragons for thier Power, it's thier Wisdom
RealWorld maps reviewed by realworld players:
www.cablelink.com/realworld/ (http://www.cablelink.com/realworld/)

INF_Neo
14th Feb 2000, 04:01 PM
soldiers of fortune will be available in Germany. (I can tell)

I don't know what I should think. Sorry. Too many ideas...

ShakKen
15th Feb 2000, 02:13 AM
I believe it's the parent's responsibility to gauge their child's physchological profile to see whether they're suceptable to violence.

I've been playing violent games since I was 9, however I'm not a crazed teen murderer. My 7-year old cousin on the other hand, plays playstation games like they are his life. So I'm keeping a close eye on him.

But such a generalisation is idiotic. Whether they're action figures, cartoons or games, every child is exposed to the same level of military psyke at one point or the other.

I know several young Rainbow6 players who want to join the military so they can protect their country(ies).

If anyone is to blame for the violence, it's the parents who don't moniter the upbringing of their children. So the parents of the trenchcoat mafia can take they're lawsuits, stick them up their a$$e$ and shut their holes.

Before pointing at other people, check how much dirt is under your own nails.

Lance201
15th Feb 2000, 06:26 AM
Hi Inf-Neo,

it´s not the question if it will be available in Germany (Heroin is also "available"), it´s a matter if it will be official released and it won´t!!

LCPL TWENTY

INF_Neo
15th Feb 2000, 05:11 PM
I think there will be a 'typical German version'. No blood, no bodies, no death....

MiscMan
15th Feb 2000, 07:01 PM
Not living in Germany, I wouldn't know. But violent games are simply outlets to kill things in a nonviolent way. Just like hunting(doesnt kill people at least, keeps down deer population too) and most sports. I agreeable, erm, agree with shakken.

If you ask me i think violence that isn't glamorized shouldn't need a rating or what not. In fact, sheltering children is a disgrace if you ask me. I think it is better to kill programs than killing real people.

When it comes down to it, someone who plays games his/her whole life prolly won't have the nerve or idiocy to kill someone.

INF_Neo
16th Feb 2000, 05:29 PM
It does also mak a difference wether it's useless ot not.
Kingpin <-> Rogue Spear

Jaguar
16th Feb 2000, 05:49 PM
Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear Rule! Kingpin has too much F@%#&!!ing cursing even for ME to enjoy!

Waxx
16th Feb 2000, 09:20 PM
Oh come on. I'm twelve years old and I LOVE guns! (they fascinate me) Do you REALLY think that if I shoot someone with an M9 online, I'm going to go out and buy an M9 and shoot someone? THOSE AREN'T REAL PEOPLE! THEY'RE PIXELS! THE GUNS AREN'T REAL (in the game), THE CHARACTERS AREN'T REAL, NOTHING ABOUT UT IS REAL! It's inside a computer, not in the real world. I admit, some people find it disturbing. Does that mean they have to play it? NO! The reason these people don't want violent games is they only care about themselves, not the other people who enjoy games like this. It is their problem, not ours. (sorry 'bout the rant, but this is the off-topic section)

Billdog
16th Feb 2000, 09:50 PM
I find that Infiltration have a redeeming property: The goal ain't headless bloody shooting like most FPS, but to survive the game.

deathren
17th Feb 2000, 02:57 AM
i do agree! I think it is the way the parents well um, Jeez i just cant find a word for that.

But i think, If a child plays a shooting game, and blasts PIXELS It deosnt effect them UNLESS Their parents dont treach them whats right! Heck, I shoot those bots up all day! and I think war, murder, and all that SUCKS! I would kill myself before i killed someone else! I play Army W/ my friends, iu play unreal/tribes and so on online! have i ever wanted to kill someone? NO

------------------
"The world ended when man was created"
-deathren

deathren
17th Feb 2000, 03:04 AM
Heck! Id just LOVE to shoot the person that thinks violent Tv/Games/toys ETC reffect kids! (I am Just kiiding about the shoot da person part, But i would like to chemw them out, You kmnow, Give em a peice of my mind!)
I would NEVER shoot ANHYTHING! (Well, It would be nice to nuke a mosquito with an AT4... but thats overkill! Ill settle with the flyswatter)

I have A Quadrillion toy guns at home, I have shoot up games up the ying yang! Humpfh. I just think these people who want to actually BAN these games from use are screwed up in the head...
Heck, My mom's favorate game is EverQuest! Go an' play that, be a trooll! There are didmembered dwarves all over the place!
and dont even get me started on those people who are P.O. ed at the harry potter books...

Waxx
17th Feb 2000, 06:54 PM
No, you want to know what really sucks here? I'm a big military guy, and I always dress up as a soldier for halloween. Now, thanks to mister Dylan Klebold, eric Harris, and big mister liberal democrat, I can't find any realistic toy guns in the area! I don't know about you guys, but it really sucks here. Not even Toys-R-Us has one!

deathren
19th Feb 2000, 11:17 AM
I can beleive ya, Waxx, But the Freddie Myeres down here where I live has a cool 45 acp pistol (Toy) for sale, spray it black, looks kewl.

Hey, mabye you could talk your dad into getting you an AT4 or somfin. /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif

------------------
"The world ended when man was created"
-deathren

Cap'n Beeb
21st Feb 2000, 09:05 PM
To me, the whole idea of blaming FPSs on all the problems of the world is a bunch of bull shiznit. I have been playing games like Wolfenstein, Doom and nearly any other FPS you can name since I was 5, and never have I had the urge to kill someone, let alone SHOOT them. Sorry, I just kind rant on topics like these.

Loki
21st Feb 2000, 10:49 PM
People have to blame someone. But they wont blame themselves for screwing up if their kid/friend, goes on a rampage.
It also depends on how things fall into place for the kid/person (teasing, harasment, ect) NOT just games


------------------
- Loki

Cap'n Beeb
21st Feb 2000, 11:54 PM
Exactly my point Loki. I got one of those Outback Dusters for Christmas, and wear it to school everyday since, and everywhere I go I hear hushed whispers of "Columbine", "Colorado, BOOM" and other dumb crap like that, but I have more brains than to go and kill someone. Thanks for making my point.

Loki
22nd Feb 2000, 09:32 PM
No problem. I share the same views too.

PS. Outback Dusters?

Cap'n Beeb
22nd Feb 2000, 10:29 PM
Its sort of like a trench coat, but Australlian (SP?) Very comfy /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Water-proof to boot.

K[LOC]
23rd Feb 2000, 05:09 AM
alls i can say is, ban guns not games.
i guess its easy to target computer gaming violence because it takes some of the pressure off of the movie and t.v. industries who glorify violence but i guess all censoring mediums need a scapegoat.
the real issue is parenting and child development which addresses right and wrong behaviors and respect for actual life...
anyway i just wanted to add if those filthy bastards who killed at columbine where still playing doom when quake 2 and unreal were out i'm glad there dead.

23rd Feb 2000, 06:25 AM
K[LOC], please explain to us the following:

1. Why guns should be banned

2. How guns should be banned

I eagerly anticipate your reply.

------------------
Gryphon/JTF2
Striving for Excellence in Small Arms Data

=JTF2= Infiltration Server Info (http://members.home.net/freedomstoystore)

23rd Feb 2000, 06:25 AM
K[LOC], please explain to us the following:

1. Why guns should be banned

2. How guns should be banned

I eagerly anticipate your reply.

------------------
Gryphon/JTF2
Striving for Excellence in Small Arms Data

=JTF2= Infiltration Server Info (http://members.home.net/freedomstoystore)

Loki
23rd Feb 2000, 03:16 PM
Ya how can you ban guns?

FabulousRex
23rd Feb 2000, 10:31 PM
The simple truth is really that there is no simple answer. I beleive that DOOM and such games did have an effect on Tweedle-Dee and Dum, but they took it to the next level, visualizing killing in their own heads. Sometimes these things can't be helped. Look at Jeff Dahmer, he was raised right by good parents in a nice suburban neighborhood, but he still went off the deep end. I learned in Psych. Class that sometimes the wiring is just messed-up to begin with. No one was complaining to ban 'Silence of the Lambs' after Dahmer's rampage... (sorry, bad analogy; but you get my point)

[This message has been edited by FabulousRex (edited 02-23-2000).]

K[LOC]
26th Feb 2000, 12:44 AM
first of all i totally agree with what you say about the wiring being all messed up to begin with, but at the same time i find it hard to believe that his parents did not see even a slight oddity in this serial murderer's behaviour,
and oh about banning guns, its easy...
take away the guns from the whole hearted stoic wannabe people who claim that hunting is a necessaty (such a good thing to keep the population at safe levels)...Hey yo, we wouldnt be killing them if it isnt for human expansion!... maybe we should keep humans at a safe population instead. we can start with the people who want to legalize handguns, and concealment, the same people who make it easier for criminals to kill, and kid's to blast each other with.
and i know, i know,
how are we gonna protect ourselves,
criminals can get guns regardless of any laws
blah blah blah,
i believe in the constitution and the right of a militia (not some paranoid anti-gov bunch of **** heels) but a real militia called upon to fight for the people and the government not against it in times of need to bear arms.
but how many of the minute men had semi auto handguns? modified assault equipment like car-15's, ak's tech-9's?
they had a musket with 1 shot every 2 minutes r.o.f.
i say go back to the old school, muskets and all, its just as effecient for hunting as it ever was, or needed to be i should say.
granted ,"all guns can kill", or ,"its not the gun that kills...", or ,"you gotta pry this gun from my dying hands".
the fact still remains that more people have died from guns than from religion,
and thats pretty f###ed up.

K[LOC]
26th Feb 2000, 12:47 AM
kphat1@yahoo.com

Mr. McFeely
1st Mar 2000, 01:05 AM
Regarding violence and violent video games-
For most people there is a firm barrier between fantasy and reality. As long as this barrier is intact, as it is in mentally healthy individuals, these people should be able to do whatever they wish, in their FANTASY worlds. Violent video games also provide and outlet for the natural aggression of teenagers. We can't go out and kill a saber toothed tiger anymore, so we've got to find other, more hi-tech alternatives.

Regarding the talk of banning guns in this post-
Good luck! When has banning a problem ever solved it? A little era called prohibition comes to mind. I'm not so nieve to think we can selectively remove guns from just the criminals either. However, I think people could live with guns if the society in which they lived wasn't so dysfunctional and inherently violent. Taking guns, booze, porn, etc. away sure as hell wont solve that.

Your neighbor,
Mr. McFeely

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
4th Mar 2000, 05:26 PM
>and oh about banning guns, its easy...

Banning guns may be easy, but getting guns out of the hands of criminals is damn near impossible.

>take away the guns from the whole hearted stoic wannabe people who claim that hunting is a necessaty (such a good thing to keep the population at safe levels)...Hey yo, we wouldnt be killing them if it isnt for human expansion!

In case you didn't know, humans are animals. We all have our place in the food chain. The only reason hunting IS legal is because it is necessary to keep the animal population down here. Whether we expand or not, if the deer population grows too high, they will eat every last food source available to them, and then they will all die off.

>maybe we should keep humans at a safe population instead. we can start with the people who want to legalize handguns, and concealment, the same people who make it easier for criminals to kill, and kid's to blast each other with.

Where I live, handguns are legal, and you can carry them concealed if you have the proper permits. This does NOT make it easier for criminals to kill, because criminals can not and do not obtain those permits, or buy handguns legally, so whether those are legal or not makes no difference to them. If anything, it makes it harder on the criminals, because people can walk down the street with a gun, of course the criminal would rather be attacking an unarmed person. (Btw, almost 75% of convicted criminals in a prison poll said they had decided against committing at least 1 crime because they feared their victim was armed) It also doesn't make it easier for kids to kids to kill eachother, when that happens the blame lands solely on the parents. You know that 6 year old that killed another kid with a gun recently? The gun was stolen! Stealing is already illegal, making guns illegal wouldn't do jack ****.

>and i know, i know,
how are we gonna protect ourselves,
criminals can get guns regardless of any laws
blah blah blah,

What? You speak of the 2 most important facts about gun control (more properly called gun-owner-control) like they don't matter! Every year in the US, 2 MILLION people protect themselves with guns, and only 35,000 get killed by guns. Also, somewhere near 95% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally. Put these 2 things together, and it's obvious that GUN CONTROL DOES MORE BAD THAN GOOD.

>i believe in the constitution and the right of a militia (not some paranoid anti-gov bunch of **** heels) but a real militia called upon to fight for the people and the government not against it in times of need to bear arms.

Maybe you should read the 2nd amendment again...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

You read it, "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE". And, the general function of a militia is not for the government, they're supposed to be generally against it. They aren't like a military, who takes orders from the government, they watch the government closely and keep it in line, as an avoidance to tyranny. America was founded by such people, who faught against their own tyrannical goverment and earned their freedom. In case you didn't know, the last straw was gun control. The revolutionary war began when the redcoats came for the minutemen's guns.

>but how many of the minute men had semi auto handguns? modified assault equipment like car-15's, ak's tech-9's?

So what if we have more advanced gun technology now? That helps the people defending themselves, too. In the 93 L.A. riots, the only buildings left standing on some streets were owned by Korean shopowners with semi-auto rifles, like AR-15's. Oh, and don't forget that the minutemen had cannon.

>they had a musket with 1 shot every 2 minutes r.o.f.

Actually, the average well-trained soldier could get off 4 shots every minute on a good day. It's still slow, but as I said, that doesn't matter.

>i say go back to the old school, muskets and all, its just as effecient for hunting as it ever was, or needed to be i should say.

Hmmm, would you want to hunt bear or mountain lion with a gun that needs 15 seconds in between each shot? For me, even bolt-action is a stretch, I'd feel safer with a semi-auto for dangerous game. And what would doing this solve? (And what exactly is this your saying we should do?)

>granted ,"all guns can kill", or ,"its not the gun that kills...", or ,"you gotta pry this gun from my dying hands".

I think you mean "guns don't kill people, people kill people". If not, what are you saying?

>the fact still remains that more people have died from guns than from religion,
and thats pretty f###ed up.

And what about the countless people saved by guns? Remember, it's over 6,000 people every DAY, in the US alone.

deathren
4th Mar 2000, 10:01 PM
BAN Guns? INSANE! You ban firearms, the criminals will either illegally get them, OR use other things.

------------------
"She only laughs at oyur primative jokes because she is trying to be nice."
-A friend of mine

profit
5th Mar 2000, 10:24 AM
"only 35,000 get killed by guns"

only? American apathy towards violent crime sickens me.

"More Americans are killed in gun homicides in one day than in an entire year in Japan. "

"More people are shot and killed in America in one week than in all of Western Europe in one year. "

"Texans own 68 million guns. There are 17 million Texans. That's four guns for every man, woman and child. "

"There are more than 10 times as many licensed gun dealers in America than McDonald's restaurants: 142,000 to 12,000. "

"Hospital emergency rooms treat almost 100,000 Americans each year for gun-related injuries. "

"Almost 1 million Americans died from gun-related murders, suicides or accidents from 1933 to 1982. More than half occurred after 1960. "

I agree that the solution is not banning firearms entirely, but better gun control is clearly needed. Common sense laws cannot pass into law because of the enormous sway of the NRA and 'pro gun' lobbies have in the legislative process. Current burreacracy serves only to hinder gun dealers trying to make an honest living. There is a societal issue at play which will not be addressed until Americans finally wake up and decide that a weekly school / office / gas station shooting isn't acceptable in a modern, developed country that they ignorantly proclaim to be the best in the world. The attitudes of those who believe firearms to be an essential part of self defence are only partially right. The untrained and ill educated masses that own these weapons hurt themselves or their family members with a greater frequency than warding off invaders. Accidental shootings are at a ridiculous level for one reason: guns are too accessable. As with most every societal problem, the answer is education. An educated populace would commit fewer violent crimes, would not require the cheap security a gun avails and would not continue the bull**** tradition of apathy towards issues that should clearly be addressed in a developed country.

As for the media's role... The typical "I've never shot / wanted to shoot anyone" defence is pure garbage. Clearly the majority won't feel such urges, if they did, we would see millions, not "mere" (heavy sarcasm) thousands die in shootings every year. Everyone in America is bombarded with violent imagery from the media. Not everyone in America will accept this as acceptable reality and act on it accordingly. Only a tiny fraction of a percent do. What it does create though, is an atmosphere of apathy and tolerance towards violent crime and I believe, a reason why the American people are not nearly concerned enough (again in my opinion) towards issues of both violent crime and gun control. Another societal problem that would easily be solved by decent education.

The situation is not being dealt with, no one seems to care, thousands and thousands more will die before your people sit up and recognize the problem.

"Saber es poder" (knowledge is power) - Spanish proverb

Any intelegent replies can be directed to me directly.

kdavis@uvic.ca

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
5th Mar 2000, 06:26 PM
>>"only 35,000 get killed by guns" only? American apathy towards violent crime sickens me.

Don't bother quoting if your not going to quote the entire idea, and not just a fragment. What I said was, "Every year in the US, 2 MILLION people protect themselves with guns, and only 35,000 get killed by guns." Compared to the 2,000,000 that are saved by guns, the 35,000 is, yes- ONLY 35,000. I am anything but apathetic about it, but some people need to understand that gun-owner-control laws WILL NOT save them from criminals.

>>"More Americans are killed in gun homicides in one day than in an entire year in Japan."

Japan is much, much, much, much, much smaller than America, and they have always been much less violence-prone, even before their gun control laws.


I could sit here and reply to all your facts one by one, but none of them say anything at all. America is huge, the fact that we have lots of guns is a *good* thing (you should probably read "More guns, Less Crime" sometime... the author is an EX anti-gun lobbyist, who actually researched the facts... when he found the truth he switched sides of the debate- Proffessor John Lott).

And I've heard all that crap about the "Big, Scary NRA" stopping even the "good, common sense laws", and it is nothing but dribble... the politicians have no common sense, or know what a good law is.

>>I agree that the solution is not banning firearms entirely, but better gun control is clearly needed

Let's see, the crime rate (including gun-crime rate) is dropping, and millions are protecting themselves with guns... why again do we *need* more gun-owner-control?

No-one has yet to tell me one gun-owner-control law that would work... maybe you should give me an idea of one of these "common sense laws", and then explain to me why the hell a criminal would be following it.

DEFkon
5th Mar 2000, 06:40 PM
Despite my own opinon on the matter i'm going to play the devil's advocate. There are basically 2 slightly different questions.

Do violent games, make indivduals violent?

A: Unfortuantly such a general question cannout have a simple answer. In general though being exposed to a violent atmosphere for a prolonged time does in fact make a person more likely to be violent, or at least more capable of doing violent acts. However the word "game" usually means "fantasy" or less extreem. Most people do have the abiltiy to seperate fantasy and "actual".

The only problem is that even the most sane indivdual will lose that abiltiy after being exposed to that fantasy for a long duration.

it's possible to say that violent games could aid in making people act violently, becaues if a person becomes overly involved in the game it's very possible that the line between fantasy and real is removed.

However.. A: being "overly" involved would be hard to judge, and would more than likely the result of extreem stress build up and other emotional distress already present.

B: once the indivdual is removed from the fantasy atmosphere, and alowed to "cool off" they usually return to a "normal" state and are able to make rational judgements once again.

Q2: Are games like RB6, that focus on simulating realism able to teach people tactics that could be employed in real life? Essentially, could they make someone a better killer.

A: Yes. The more realistic the game, the more effective the tactics would be if employed in actuallity. It could be used as a form of training. Although most of us don't have the super human strenght or agaility to perform what we do on the screen.
But that could be simulated as well. ( try setting all your stats to 10 or 0 in RB6 )

Also one cannot ignore the fact that a certain level of confidence is instilled on a veteran of such a game, and that confidnce (or ego) could make the option to say rob a liquor store, or hijack a plane seem more possible in a snap decision due to the training and expirence gathered from the simulation.

Snakeye
5th Mar 2000, 07:13 PM
For making a short statement to the topic:
I think that games with violent content may cause people to behave violent - same with TV etc..
Still those who are influenced by such media are equally likely to be influenced by voices inside their heads. This is just a very little percentage.
The main problems may occur with younger people, who are not mature enough to cope with certain violent contents. And don't tell me your kids say they transformed one sprite/polygon into another, because even I use the expression 'kill' a bot.(I'm 22 btw)

The main problem with banning firearms is, that it doesn't work. Violence is a social problem - not a firearm problem; I even think that firearms make people 'more' equal - allowing a weaker person to defend itself effectively.
I also think that Japan is a bad example, since the Japanese mentality differs strongly from the western.
If you'd like a nice example, take switzerland. Everybody may own a gun - with special license from the state even full-auto. While some German anti-weapon politicians think that switzerland has the second highest crime rate of the world, after US of course, in reality switzerland is a quiet country with only little criminality.

That's it..

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

DEFkon
5th Mar 2000, 10:05 PM
hmm didn't australia, or austria just offically ban guns. If so i wonder how they're dealing with it. Be intresting to see if there were any major changes in death rates caused by firearms, and crime rates using firearms.

Be nice to see if it worked, or not.

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
5th Mar 2000, 10:59 PM
Gun Laws Around the World: Do They Work?
http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/19990728-InternationalGunControl-001.html (http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/19990728-InternationalGunControl-001.html)

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-05-2000).]

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
5th Mar 2000, 10:59 PM
Gun Laws Around the World: Do They Work?
http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/19990728-InternationalGunControl-001.html (http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/19990728-InternationalGunControl-001.html)

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-05-2000).]

Snakeye
6th Mar 2000, 05:26 AM
No Austria did not ban guns; although our gun laws are quite restrictive..
You are allowed to buy any bolt action rifle without license, but you still have to register the weapon. Shotguns are free, except pump and semi versions.
Any Pistol or Revolver can only be bought with a license, which is rather easy to aquire, if you need one(sportman or hunter or self-defense..)
Any Semi-autos Rifle and semi/pump shotguns need another license, which is rather difficult to aquire.
Anything military semi/full-auto is prohibited - except you're one of the few who can get a special permission, but that's the exception.

After all the(current) gun laws in Austria are quite acceptable, IMO.

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

profit
6th Mar 2000, 07:00 AM
>The main problem with banning firearms is, that it doesn't work. Violence is a social problem - not a firearm problem

Thank you, my entire post in one sentence.

I agree the Japan example was a poor one, my underlying point was that the *social problem* present in America is clearly not there.

Only per capita stats are truly valid in such an argument, do the math.

DeadeyeDan[ToA]....

20 million Americans are not 'saved' by guns, you know that. I read it as a symantical err on your part.

Since our ideas appear to be diametrically opposed, I pose a few questions to you in an attempt to find some common ground on which to base such a discussion.

1) Do believe there is problem with firearm violence in the US? if so, is it worth solving? if so, how?

I believe the problem has reached ridiculous levels, not one week goes by without "another deadly shooting in .... " being heard on the news. I believe it is, I value the lives of humans. I believe the solution is through education and common sense gun control.

2) Do you believe in the unequivocal right to bear arms, regardless of psychiatric ability and/or leanings towards violent crime?

I don't believe anyone supports giving firearms to children, psychopaths and convicted violent criminals.

3) Do you the invasion of privacy involved in a background check is justified before someone is permitted to own a firearm? and is a waiting period long enough for a sufficient check unreasonable?

I believe that a first class citizen should have no problem obtaining a firearm after their status as such has been confirmed, if that takes only an hour, fine by me.

4) Do you believe in the sale and proliferation of purely offensive firearms and ammunition?

I believe offensive weapons have only use in the hands of criminals and law enforcement agents, no one needs hollow points to protect their family.

Regarding the issue of violence in the media...

Canada (excluding Quebec) has essentially the same culture, there is not nearly the violent crime problem here (per capita of course).
Thank you for your time.

kdavis@uvic.ca

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
6th Mar 2000, 02:09 PM
>>Do believe there is problem with firearm violence in the US? if so, is it worth solving? if so, how?

Yes. Yes. Increase the punishments for armed and/or violent crimes, and convict people for them more often.

>>Do you believe in the unequivocal right to bear arms, regardless of psychiatric ability and/or leanings towards violent crime?

No.

>>Do you believe in the sale and proliferation of purely offensive firearms and ammunition?

No such thing. Why don't you give me an example that you think is "purely offensive".

>>Do you the invasion of privacy involved in a background check is justified before someone is permitted to own a firearm? and is a waiting period long enough for a sufficient check unreasonable?

Yes, the standard background check they do here in AZ is justified. No, the waiting period does not make a sufficient check possible, the proper check takes just a few minutes. Waiting periods are stupid, and have caused the loss of innocent lives.

I'll be back to answer the rest in a few hours, I gotta go.

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
6th Mar 2000, 06:21 PM
>>Do you believe in the sale and proliferation of purely offensive firearms and ammunition?

>>I believe offensive weapons have only use in the hands of criminals and law enforcement agents, no one needs hollow points to protect their family.

There's no such thing as a weapon you can only use to attack, and not defend. I don't think you understand what a hollowpoint is... what should they be using? FMJ? Pre-fragmented rounds? In some calibers, both of those can be not enough to stop an intruder, and some FMJ's can punch through many interior walls, and put innocent people at risk. Hollowpoints are usually the PERFECT choice for defending a household- they are good at stopping intruders in their tracks, and they won't overpenetrate and then go through a wall and kill someone else.

Btw, the part of my post you didn't include was NOT "20 million americans are saved by guns each year", it was "Every year in the US, 2 million people protect themselves with guns". No numerical or semantic error.

ap
6th Mar 2000, 10:06 PM
>>Do believe there is problem with firearm violence in the US? if so, is it worth solving? if so, how?

>Yes. Yes. Increase the punishments for armed and/or violent crimes, and convict people for them more often.

That is a ridiculous response. Increasing punishment? first of all, people commiting such acts are WAY beyond considering the consequences of their actions. They obviously don't think twice about what theyre doing and either think they will get away with it, or want to be caught.

Some of the 'major' shootings lately in the states have ended up being suicide missions in the end... what do we do then? theres nobody to punish... just a bunch innocent people dead.

does the punishment of a gun yielding homicidal maniac really bring any sort of comfort to the families and friends of the victims?

You cant wait for shootings to happen, THEN correct the problem...you've got to stop them before they happen in the first place. Punishing criminals doesnt bring back the dead... it just burns holes in tax payers pockets.

But preventing those crimes from happening in the first place, both saves lives...and prevents the threat of a random gun attack on innocent people.

The only way to do that is to have much stricter laws, and educate the masses on the dangers and seriousness of firearms...thats the root of the problem...punishing criminals is at the very end of the line...when thats the only thing left to do.

>>Do you the invasion of privacy involved in a background check is justified before someone is permitted to own a firearm?
and is a waiting period long enough for a sufficient check unreasonable?

>Waiting periods are stupid, and have caused the loss of innocent lives.

do you really think that during the waiting period an owner endures to purchase a firearm, that his and/or his families life will be threatened during that span? and would they NEED a firearm to 'cheat' death? I hardly doubt that...

They have probably saved countless more lives than they have ended. Any place with an effective background check prevents guns from getting into the hands of psychopaths and other threats to the general public. Sadly, however...in many cases(US especially) there are no checks present and theyre probably easier to obtain than the hottest 'beanie baby' on the market.

Think solving the problem before it starts, not after its too late.

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
6th Mar 2000, 11:50 PM
>>That is a ridiculous response. Increasing punishment? first of all, people commiting such acts are WAY beyond considering the consequences of their actions. They obviously don't think twice about what theyre doing and either think they will get away with it, or want to be caught.

Yet, Japan has hardly any crime... they have a 99.1% conviction rate. If you look at the crime increase over the years in this country, you'll see they started decreasing when conviction rates go down. In 1960 there was about half the crime, yet still tons of guns... because we convicted 800 of every 1000 people in court. (now it's around 300)

>>does the punishment of a gun yielding homicidal maniac really bring any sort of comfort to the families and friends of the victims?

I don't know, ask them. The father of the 2/3 year old in Britain who was killed by a 9 and 10 year old swore on camera that if they weren't imprisoned he'd kill them himself. BUT, that's not the point. The point is a deterrent, at which it works much better.

>>you've got to stop them before they happen in the first place

The problem is, you can't. The sad truth is, if someone wants to kill you, they can.

>>it just burns holes in tax payers pockets

The way we punish them now, yes. We need to stop turning prisons into club-meds for criminals. They get television, free gym access, decent food and living quarters, even paying jobs. When I got in trouble as a young child the TV was the *first* thing to go... maybe I should have killed somebody instead of stealing cookies. And don't forget the homeless people starving and freezing on street corners, while rapists and murderers live the good life.

>>The only way to do that is to have much stricter laws, and educate the masses on the dangers and seriousness of firearms...thats the root of the problem

While I agree with the education thing (I've always firmly believed this), what do you mean by stricter laws?

>>do you really think that during the waiting period an owner endures to purchase a firearm, that his and/or his families life will be threatened during that span? and would they NEED a firearm to 'cheat' death? I hardly doubt that...

>>They have probably saved countless more lives than they have ended. Any place with an effective background check prevents guns from getting into the hands of psychopaths and other threats to the general public. Sadly, however...in many cases(US especially) there are no checks present and theyre probably easier to obtain than the hottest 'beanie baby' on the market.

Wrong. They do not save lives. WAITING PERIODS DO NOT MAKE THE BACKGROUND CHECK MORE EFFECTIVE. All the info is obtained within a few minutes. The "Instant-check" computers work perfectly, AND they get arrests, unlike the waiting periods which don't run the tests until after the criminals have left, so they lose the opportunity to arrest them. Please tell me what states do not require the instant-check system, before you assume there are "many".

And the criminals don't buy their guns legally anyway, remember, so the background checks and waiting periods don't affect them.

For more information on the supposed success of waiting perios, go to http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/19990728-WaitingPeriods-001.html.

For more information about Prosecution as a Prevention, go to http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/19990706-CrimeCriminalJustice-001.html

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-06-2000).]

Lance201
9th Mar 2000, 09:55 AM
Hi guys... a lot of posts and a little change in the topic. In Germany we have a very restricted gaunlaw and it´s OK in my opinion. Because I think there are to many stupid persons out there without brain and the possibilty to imagine things. It´s to dangerous if you make it to easy for them to get firearms. Criminals will always get there arms somewhere, but they are not the problem, because I will be protected from them by the state (police!). But no one will protect me from the mass of Idiots in my country. They could do harm withou real firearms. A guy shot a sylvesterrocket into my haed at a graet event in our city... 3 days in the hospital and big scar on the top of my head. i will not think about what will happen if such a person will get close to firearms.
OK enough talking let´s play Inf with the great maps from bastard_o (hillbase and bridgetoofar are may favorites), because nobody can be insured only by playing a game!

LCPL TWENTY

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
10th Mar 2000, 01:45 PM
http://homes.acmecity.com/rosie/luck/307/

Commie
11th Mar 2000, 09:25 AM
Oi, I double posted. My bad. Read my comment below

Cheers,
Commmie

[This message has been edited by Commie (edited 03-11-2000).]

Commie
11th Mar 2000, 09:27 AM
DeadeyeDan,
If you want to prove your point you may want to use more...neutral websites? Linking to an organization like the NRA, who obviously are biased, doesn't do much to prove your point in my mind.

Oh, and I would like to respond to a quote on that other site you provided a link to
(http://homes.acmecity.com/rosie/luck/307/)

"Only armed people are free."

I'm Danish, I'm unarmed, and I'm damn free

"How many Jews would have died if every time the Gestapo or SS came for them, those groups had been met by a hail of gunfire?"

I have often wondered myself why the Jews didn't resist, I don't think the answer is that they weren't armed. I think the answer is that they simply couldn't believe that one man could be so cruel towards another.
Hell, I still can't believe that people can be so cruel towards each other. We humans, as a species, are an odd bunch.

As for gun control, I don't see why someone would need a rifle, handgun or whatever. I live my life quite comfortably without firearms.

------------------
Ivan...IVAN!!!

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
11th Mar 2000, 01:37 PM
Why doesn't it? A neutral website would not have persuasive articles and such, filled with statistics that show why gun control is a bad thing. The NRA uses clear, factual information ONLY, with detailed bibliographies, they seem like the ones to trust on the issue, not some anti-gun site claiming to be neutral and using twisted logic and misleading stats.

You don't think the jews being armed would matter? How much do you know about Switzerland in the WW2 era? They had no Army, Hitler hated the Swiss with a passion, they were right in his fastest route to France, but he did not invade the Swiss- their population was very armed and very dedicated, and would fight them to the last drop of Swiss blood... the Swiss would have lost, but Germany would suffer great losses, not enough to justify such a small gain. What if the jews in Germany disobeyed Hitler's gun control laws, heavily armed themselves, and swore to fight to the death? Do you think Hitler would think it was worth it to lose 2-5 more Nazi's just to kill one more jew?

>>As for gun control, I don't see why someone would need a rifle, handgun or whatever. I live my life quite comfortably without firearms.

Well, do you NEED a car? Should we take cars away from everyone because they don't NEED them? After all, cars kill MANY more people than guns do... and believe it or not, some people DO need them- every DAY here in the US, 6,000 people protect themselves with firearms.

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-11-2000).]

Snakeye
11th Mar 2000, 02:16 PM
Actually some jews put up resistance against the Nazis - although too few in number to achieve any effect..I wouldn't try to guess what had happened if more of them had had guns.
About Switzerland; I'm half-swiss, and I know a bit about this era in history, and therefore don't think that a possible armed resistance would have discouraged the third reich to attack Switzerland. It was rather the really bad terrain, which would have led to a bloody guerilla war; that wasn't worth it..
Also Switzerland was far from incooperative - they had some treaties about letting German trains through their land; some even said they sold weapons to the Nazis.
After all I wouldn't think Switzerland was left alone because of neutrality(that's rather a joke, since noone ever bothered about neutrality..) or because the Swiss population, which might have fought to the last man; just the losses in a mountain war are quite high - just like in Monte Cassino - and the little country wasn't worth that many resources.

But I do believe, that an armed population is a free one. It should be just observed who gets weapons and what kind of weapons are available(legally, of course) - I really don't see the reason for anyone to have a M61 Vulcan - that's rather stupid for self-defense; but a M9 or a semi-auto carbine or a shotgun can be quite handy in a worst case scenario.

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

AgentSmith
11th Mar 2000, 02:29 PM
My question is.. how come because some people went totally insane after playing violent video games all of the "normal" people can't play them.. I mean its scary, I've seen a kid like that, when I was young there was a kid, I would go to his house and after playing a long game of doom he would go outside and kick stuff and jump around pretending he had a rocket launcher or something..

But just because two people went really insane doesn't mean every person will go insane.. ahh. I don't know how to word this, somebody help me out..

Snakeye
11th Mar 2000, 03:06 PM
Someone who goes insane because playing violent games, will also go insane if anybody touches his car, says hello, or makes a remark about his haircut..
Some people are insane - some of them will run out one day and kill anybody in sight and some won't. I don't think that banning violent games, guns, violent TV-stuff will change anything.
To be honest I would rather go out and kill someone after watching four hours of Dawson's Creek and Teletubbies than after four hours and 1000 frags of INF - or a FMJ, 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Natural born killers'-Session..
I think it's the other way round; playing INF(especially because it it realistic) won't cause me to kill people - why?
1. I get rid of my aggressions..
2. I learn that running around with a gun and shooting people causes my death within 10 mins - with only 5 bots..now try to imagine how fast you die against 50 cops?

The real problem are the Rambo-type games/movies, which suggest that anybody is able to take out an army, get hit twelvehundred times and still gets away..
That ain't realistic!

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

Commie
12th Mar 2000, 06:18 AM
"The NRA uses clear, factual information ONLY, with detailed bibliographies, they seem like the ones to trust on the issue, not some anti-gun site claiming to be neutral and using twisted logic and misleading stats."

You got it backwards. Twisted logic? Good description of the NRA site.

As for armed Jews. Trained SS soldiers (or just normal ones) against a bunch of old folks and children? Sounds like a slaughter to me. I'll admit I don't know too much about the Swiss' role in the war, but I have a hard time believe that Hitler chose not to invade Switzerland because the population was armed. He probably stayed out because the country had no strategic value, or some such thing.

And yes, I NEED a car. It is a form of transportation! I NEED it to get to work.
You don't need a gun, it serves no real purpose. Its a mechanical device that fires a slug at high speeds, such a device doesn't belong in a modern, civilized society.

Guns belong two places - In the hands of law enforcement officers and trained military personnel. Needing a handgun to protect yourself is pure BS.

Snakeye
12th Mar 2000, 10:54 AM
I really wouldn't say Switzerland has no strategic value - it's in the heart of Europe and provides some shortcuts from Germany to Italy and France! Together with a good road&rail system already established in that time plus a very good defensive terrain!
The stratecig value of Switzerland is not that small, just the terrain together with the Swiss army - which was and is very good trained in mountain warfare - makes it a very costy piece of earth for any aggressor.
One more:
Throw away your pictures about all jews being old men or little children; as anybody would anticipate the jews consisted of the usual mix of ages every population consists of.
And don't think children are bad soldiers..
Just ask everybodys favourite dictators of the world:
Children can kill you as good as anybody; of course not babies..

Last thing:
I don't know where you come from, but in Austria we have trains, busses, bikes and of course our feet as means of transportation; a car is no necessity, there are other ways to get to work. Somehow peolpe also managed to go to work when cars where not invented.

Oh, and I wouldn't say that the NRA is more biased than Anti-Weapon-Groups; both use statistics they find useful for underlining their arguments.

(really)final thought:
I wouldn't like to live in a country, where only cops&soldiers have weapons; reminds me of the Third Reich, or the CCCP, or any other tyranny. And how would you get guns away from criminals? Ask them friendly to trade them for toys? Criminals always get guns.

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

12th Mar 2000, 02:16 PM
Guess it's about time for the Inf Weapons Consultant to jump in and say a few things.

Commie, YOU absolutely do NOT need a car, especially to get to work. You can walk, take a bus, ride a bicycle, carpool. All four are perfectly viable options and demonstrate you certainly don't NEED a car.

On that same token, nobody NEEDS a gun. I certainly don't need my AR-15, my Tokarev pistol that can put an 86 gr bullet through soft body armor, or my 12 ga short-barrelled shotgun. The truth is, I WANT them. I want them because I enjoy shooting them. It's fun. I enjoy the cacophony of bursting nitrocellulose, the crack of copper-encased lead and the ring of brass on the rocky earth, the skill to accurately put a hole in an empty propane tank 100 yards distant, the stuttering kick of a recoiling stock into my shoulder, the satisfaction and amazing relief of stress and worry that destroying something with a gunshot brings. Does this mean I'm crazy?

Well, let's analyze the facts. I posess a Firearms Acquisition Certificate and own handguns and restricted rifles, authorized by the federal government. I hold three licenses to purchase, handle, and use explosives. I have a restricted area pass and proximity card that allows me onto the airfield of Winnipeg International Airport. I carry a handgun while protecting millions of dollars in cash, negotiables, and gold bullion in the performance of my duties with an armored car company. My guess is I wouldn't be at this point if I wasn't mentally sound. Anyone care to guess my age?

I agree wholeheartedly that society has degraded to the point where small arms should NOT be available to each and every living soul. But at the same time, responsible citizens should NOT be hampered from owning them. If you make a law that few people respect, you reduce respect for ALL laws. The U.S. '94 Crime Bill is a perfect example. According to this bill, a semiautomatic rifle may only have 2 "evil features", that being a pistol grip, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash hider, grenade launching attachment, or collapsible stock (when this law was passed, I'll bet the number of drive-by bayonettings dropped significantly). Not only do people disobey this law, it's hardly enforced by both local and federal law enforcement agencies. I've spoken to several people over the phone, respectable hard-working folks like you and me, who openly admit to having a post-ban AR-15 with a flash suppressor and baoynet lug. Why? Because they don't respect the law because it makes no sense. Then again, it doesn't have to make sense; it's government policy.

I'm not about to start spewing forth what controls I think should be put into place to curb violence (note I did not say GUN violence), although banning guns certainly isn't one of them. Australia tried it with "assault weapons" and a police official later publically admitted it was a failure. Britain did it with almost all guns and the rate for robbery with a firearm went up 106%. There are several gun laws already on the books in both the United States and Canada, and it would take more than a few hands to count the number of people I've spoken to that disobey at least five of them wilfully, simply because the laws are ridiculous or unjust.

There, I've said my piece. I know I'm not going to change any minds with this post, although I felt obligated to say something. Reminds me of a quote I once read, "Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig". Let me close by stating though I think it's amazingly hypocritical for someone to be calling for a ban on firearms, while at the same time playing a game whose entire basis is on firearms.

------------------
Gryphon/JTF2
Infiltration Firearms QA Consultant

=JTF2= Infiltration Server Info (http://members.home.net/freedomstoystore)

12th Mar 2000, 02:16 PM
Guess it's about time for the Inf Weapons Consultant to jump in and say a few things.

Commie, YOU absolutely do NOT need a car, especially to get to work. You can walk, take a bus, ride a bicycle, carpool. All four are perfectly viable options and demonstrate you certainly don't NEED a car.

On that same token, nobody NEEDS a gun. I certainly don't need my AR-15, my Tokarev pistol that can put an 86 gr bullet through soft body armor, or my 12 ga short-barrelled shotgun. The truth is, I WANT them. I want them because I enjoy shooting them. It's fun. I enjoy the cacophony of bursting nitrocellulose, the crack of copper-encased lead and the ring of brass on the rocky earth, the skill to accurately put a hole in an empty propane tank 100 yards distant, the stuttering kick of a recoiling stock into my shoulder, the satisfaction and amazing relief of stress and worry that destroying something with a gunshot brings. Does this mean I'm crazy?

Well, let's analyze the facts. I posess a Firearms Acquisition Certificate and own handguns and restricted rifles, authorized by the federal government. I hold three licenses to purchase, handle, and use explosives. I have a restricted area pass and proximity card that allows me onto the airfield of Winnipeg International Airport. I carry a handgun while protecting millions of dollars in cash, negotiables, and gold bullion in the performance of my duties with an armored car company. My guess is I wouldn't be at this point if I wasn't mentally sound. Anyone care to guess my age?

I agree wholeheartedly that society has degraded to the point where small arms should NOT be available to each and every living soul. But at the same time, responsible citizens should NOT be hampered from owning them. If you make a law that few people respect, you reduce respect for ALL laws. The U.S. '94 Crime Bill is a perfect example. According to this bill, a semiautomatic rifle may only have 2 "evil features", that being a pistol grip, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash hider, grenade launching attachment, or collapsible stock (when this law was passed, I'll bet the number of drive-by bayonettings dropped significantly). Not only do people disobey this law, it's hardly enforced by both local and federal law enforcement agencies. I've spoken to several people over the phone, respectable hard-working folks like you and me, who openly admit to having a post-ban AR-15 with a flash suppressor and baoynet lug. Why? Because they don't respect the law because it makes no sense. Then again, it doesn't have to make sense; it's government policy.

I'm not about to start spewing forth what controls I think should be put into place to curb violence (note I did not say GUN violence), although banning guns certainly isn't one of them. Australia tried it with "assault weapons" and a police official later publically admitted it was a failure. Britain did it with almost all guns and the rate for robbery with a firearm went up 106%. There are several gun laws already on the books in both the United States and Canada, and it would take more than a few hands to count the number of people I've spoken to that disobey at least five of them wilfully, simply because the laws are ridiculous or unjust.

There, I've said my piece. I know I'm not going to change any minds with this post, although I felt obligated to say something. Reminds me of a quote I once read, "Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig". Let me close by stating though I think it's amazingly hypocritical for someone to be calling for a ban on firearms, while at the same time playing a game whose entire basis is on firearms.

------------------
Gryphon/JTF2
Infiltration Firearms QA Consultant

=JTF2= Infiltration Server Info (http://members.home.net/freedomstoystore)

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
12th Mar 2000, 02:30 PM
Well said, Snakeye. Edit: Oh and Gryphon too (he snuck one in there while I was typing). *applause*

>>You got it backwards. Twisted logic? Good description of the NRA site.

Really? Why don't you go to their site http://www.nraila.org , and find some of that twisted logic, and report back here with some info to debunk it, then?

And like Snake said, it did have strategic value, and it was right in Hitler's route to france, AND he repeatedly confessed to HATING the swiss... but the almighty fascist conquerer went *around* puny little Switzerland. One thing I would like to point out, about Snake's post- the Swiss technically had no army, only a militia made up of a large % of the citizens (like the US did in the Revolutionary war). And yes, the mountain terrain did have alot to do with it, but the fact remains that that Swiss gunning down all the german troops from his very concealed sniper position would have been a citizen... maybe a banker, or a shoemaker, even a housewife. And even though the Jews in Germany didn't have that mountain terrain, they still have to come to your front door to take you away, they'd be on the Jews turf, I'm sure they could have taken many a Nazi down with them.

>>And yes, I NEED a car.

You don't need a car any more than I need a gun. You could just ride the bus... what are you going to make us defend our houses with? Slingshots? Statistically speaking, trying to defend yourself with anything BUT a gun will probably just anger your attacker and make him want to hurt your MORE than he already did. The presence of a gun, however, usually results in the attacker turning tail and running, usually without firing a shot.

>>Its a mechanical device that fires a slug at high speeds, such a device doesn't belong in a modern, civilized society.

Let's see, guns save more lives than they kill, and guns kill less people than cars. Just because guns were made to hurt doesn't mean jack ****. Cars and alchoholic beverages weren't made to hurt, but they do a HELL of alot more damage than guns, and never make up for it.

>>Guns belong two places - In the hands of law enforcement officers and trained military personnel. Needing a handgun to protect yourself is pure BS.

No, what you just said is pure BS. Armed resistance is the safest way to respond to an attacker or theif, and you seem to be under the impression that the police will always be there to protect you. The average police response time in the US is over 30 minutes, more than enough time for a criminal to kill/abduct/rob an unarmed victim. In my dad's case, it takes over 2 hours for police to get there, and yes we know because they've had to come down there for break-ins into both his and his neibors houses (around ten in the last 2 years or so around there). My dad may indeed need a handgun to protect himself soon, along with around 2 million others by the time this year is over.

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-12-2000).]

Commie
12th Mar 2000, 05:51 PM
Snakeye:
Of course we do have various forms of public transportation here, and that is a viable options to some. My point was that a car's purpose is to transport people, whereas a gun only has one, rather sinister purpose.

I'd be more comfortable living in a country with a strong democratic tradition, that is free of guns (Actually, I pretty much already live in one) I certainly don't feel like I live in a country run by a dictator, ruling party or whatever. I fail to understand why you feel more free owning a gun.

DeadeyeDan:
German success in battle relied on one thing, Blitz krieg. The ability to advance rapidly, using land- and airforces in a deadly combination. Flat terrain is very suitable for such a tactic, mountainous terrain is not. It was much easier for the Germans to go through the very flat Holland to get to France.
Also, I very much doubt that Hitler hated the Swiss. Swiss bankers compromised their supposed neutrality by storing Nazi gold stolen from the Jews. Why would he ruin this relationship?

"You don't need a car any more than I need a gun..."
I need my car so I can get to work, earn money and put food on the table...What exactly do you need your gun for? You don't go out huntin' with it do you? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gryphon:
We may agree on one thing, introducing gun laws in countries where owning firearms is culturally deebly imbedded, and where tons of guns already are in circulation, is pointless. Those laws you mentioned do sound ridiculous. Instead, money should be spent trying to prevent crime. I think it'd be nice to see arms manufactures financially supporting social projects in high crime areas. Prevention is always better than trying to cure the problem once its more or less too late.

"I think it's amazingly hypocritical for someone to be calling for a ban on firearms, while at the same time playing a game whose entire basis is on firearms."

I play UT/INF because it's a different, fun experience. Because it adds new flavor to UT. Me enjoying a computer GAME has nothing to do with the fact that I believe that guns have no place in the hands of civilians, in our modern society. I am capable of separating reality from a computer generated world.

I don't think the majority of INF players care too much about what gun they're firing, what ammunition it uses ect., they play INF because its fun. Same with other MODs like CS

---

I still firmly believe that it is fundamentally wrong for civilians to be armed. Guns have no place in our society. Now, that is my opinion, you have yours. I doubt we'd ever get close to an agreement. So this is the last from me on this subject, unless something comes up that'd require an answer from me.

Cheers,

Commie

[This message has been edited by Commie (edited 03-12-2000).]

DeadeyeDan[ToA]
12th Mar 2000, 09:57 PM
>>My point was that a car's purpose is to transport people, whereas a gun only has one, rather sinister purpose.

Your point is moot. Just because a car was made to transport people and a gun to fire deadly projectiles doesn't mean anything, because cars still kill alot more people, and guns protect more people than they kill.

>>I fail to understand why you feel more free owning a gun.

The more rights I have, the more free I am. When people tell me what I can and cannot own, I am less free.

>>It was much easier for the Germans to go through the very flat Holland to get to France.

Really? Have you been through both routes? If not, what's your source on that? There are roads in Switzerland, you know, and a mountain is alot easier to drive around than an entire country.

>>Also, I very much doubt that Hitler hated the Swiss

Hitler called Switzerland "a pimple boil on the face of Europe." He also boasted that he would be "the butcher of the Swiss."

>>I need my car so I can get to work, earn money and put food on the table

Wrong. You don't NEED it. It is a luxury, not a necessity, because as Snake pointed out, you could use public transportation instead. It might be more difficult, but you certainly don't NEED the car.

>>I still firmly believe that it is fundamentally wrong for civilians to be armed

Right, so it was wrong for us to be able to kick the tax-happy Brits out of America? It's wrong to be able to resist tyranny? It's wrong to protect innocent people and their property?

>>Guns have no place in our society.

I don't know about yours, but in ours, when in the right hands, they are the protectors of innocents, and the defenders of freedom. More often than not, those "right hands" belong to a civilian.

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-12-2000).]

Lance201
13th Mar 2000, 07:56 AM
he guys,

you must have a lot of time...

so I think this threat has changed it´s topic several times and we are now at the point where everybody has his arguments and I think no compromise will ever be possible.. so don´t waste the time with this ( strategic value of the swiss... holy jesus .. who cares.. the swiss are a little mountain-tribe where you can make some holiday or put some illegal money there, if you don´t like Luxembourg or Lichtenstein!) discussion and play or work!

LCPL TWENTY
(assault the swiss several times a year by motorbike and break the speedlimits!)

Snakeye
13th Mar 2000, 12:26 PM
Boy, you really want to insult me, do you?
I think I mentioned a few time I'm half-swiss; and Switzerland is far more civilized than Germany will ever be!

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
feeling like everybody is against him - except for his M4 of course..

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

Lance201
13th Mar 2000, 02:32 PM
heh,

civilized ahem ... what do you mean with that... direct democrazy... best choclate in the world ... or what.

btw do you know this. An austrian policeofficer is controlling to german guys at the border. He checks the passports and is reading p..a..s..s..p..o..r..t than he looks at the otherone and is reading p..a..s..s..p..o..r..t. After a while he says: You must be brothers! hehehe

LCPL TWENTY

you know the austrian warflag... white cross on white background!!!

Andirez
13th Mar 2000, 03:54 PM
Guys, look at the bright side : we've all got one thing that keeps us together : infiltration !

INF_Neo
13th Mar 2000, 04:04 PM
And we all love the Village People

Y - M - C - A

Andirez
13th Mar 2000, 09:24 PM
Yeah, that would make a great INF themesong !

Snakeye
14th Mar 2000, 05:32 AM
Didn't you know that the grade of civilisation in measured by the quality of the chocolate? And by the fact that everybody may own automatic weapons, and of course by 700 years without war..

That with the Austrian police officer I didn't know - just laughed my ass off..
We don't have a much higher opinion about our cops than you have..

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

Lance201
16th Mar 2000, 03:09 PM
no no it´s measured by the best pocketknife!!
And the swiss sill producing the best pocketknife. I only know victorinox but there is another producer... This little knife helped me in a lot of situations...

LCPL TWENTY

Lance201
27th Mar 2000, 10:20 AM
what about sauber... can´t they build a running car??

LCPL TWENTY

Snakeye
27th Mar 2000, 02:01 PM
Hey, switzerland is known for chocolate, cheese, firearms, banks and watches - nor for cars..
And try to answer your question for any other F1 manufacturer..
You'll find out that my '87 cit AX 14 TZS (1360ccm, 65 PS/48 kW, 695kg) has more klicks with the same engine than any of theirs - and it's still running.

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing