|
Fog Tripper posted:My WWII arms aside, if all I had were my CCW, shotgun for small game hunting, my bolt action rifle for big game, my muzzleloader for muzzleloader hunting and my my compound bow for archery season and marksmanship, would that qualify as "collecting"? See you and I would say no but most people who haven't caught the bug would say "yes." I mean all my guns have different applications but what I actually use them for is to shoot them all at the same range. There's little difference to my mind from a model train collector who buys a bunch of different trains and runs them all on the same track.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:See you and I would say no but most people who haven't caught the bug would say "yes." I mean all my guns have different applications but what I actually use them for is to shoot them all at the same range. There's little difference to my mind from a model train collector who buys a bunch of different trains and runs them all on the same track. I own a cleaver, a slew of butter knives, steak knives, chef knives, paring knives and carving knives. Same could be applied. Note, this would set off alarms in the UK and I would be manhandled by the bobbies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
LGD posted:How committed are you to them maintaining their original positions throughout the whole run of the show? Like I'm imagining an arc where the right wing guy gets fired and chooses to get gay married for the health benefits so he doesn't need to enroll in the I'm not sure but I could definitely see an episode or two where one is 'losing his touch' and missing minor cultural signifiers that make him hateable, like maybe it comes out that the rightwing guy prefers Cream to Tim McGraw or the leftwing guy doesn't know how to pronounce 'quinoa', and this jeopardizes their strawman business. They should both fumble around a lot to convince everyone they're massive hypocrites despite deep down being generally sincere and consistent in their beliefs, and there's a lot of laughs based around them having to force themselves to pretend to be converted by a rich client's snarky one-liner despite having considered the issue carefully to reach their previous position and constantly wanting to correct him on basic factual issues. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I collect WWII firearms. I guess that makes me a pre-murdering lunatic. How many examples can you cite of collectors of weapons committing firearm-related crimes? Wouldn't they be more inclined to collect say, body parts? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I own a cleaver, a slew of butter knives, steak knives, chef knives, paring knives and carving knives. Same could be applied. To us, "knife crime" sounds like an utterly ridiculous notion or thing to focus on, but in the UK they talk about it like it's a problem. But honestly, when Brits rap I laugh, because it's hard to take rap music seriously when it's made by people who stab each other only. It's...how should I put it...lacking in panache. Great art has a price.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I'm not sure but I could definitely see an episode or two where one is 'losing his touch' and missing minor cultural signifiers that make him hateable, like maybe it comes out that the rightwing guy prefers Cream to Tim McGraw or the leftwing guy doesn't know how to pronounce 'quinoa', and this jeopardizes their strawman business. They should both fumble around a lot to convince everyone they're massive hypocrites despite deep down being generally sincere and consistent in their beliefs, and being confirmed in their respective lifestyles after having thought them through carefully and choosing them rather than just being too stupid to be instantly converted by everyone else's snarky one-liners. Ok, so definitely more of a 'Fraiser'-esque comedy of manners vibe than I was thinking. Are we supposed to sympathize with these guys on some level and see the humanity underneath their craziness, or are we doubling down on the strawman thing and making them actually lovely people? I think it's the former, but it's good to be sure. The reason this matters is that while you absolutely want them to have consistent and coherent worldviews that are far to one side of the political spectrum, I feel like maybe giving each of them one or two heterodox political opinions (that they intentionally minimize and only come out over the course of the show) would go a long way towards humanizing them. edit: though obviously there are other ways to make them sympathetic, but with politics being such a big focus of the show I feel like strategic hypocrisy and violation of minor tribal markers would be a good/easy way to make them come across as genuine people rather than straight cartoons edit2: and obviously being sympathetic and lovely are not mutually exclusive, but you do need to decide how you want your audience to perceive and relate to the characters LGD fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
LGD posted:Ok, so definitely more of a 'Fraiser'-esque comedy of manners vibe than I was thinking. Are we supposed to sympathize with these guys on some level and see the humanity underneath their craziness, or are we doubling down on the strawman thing and just reveling in their scumminess? Probably ideally one of them should be relatable and one of them a scumbag and nobody watching can agree which is which but yeah I was picturing it more like they're mostly reasonable people who've reached these superficially incompatible lifestyles that are just every stereotype known to man, like a sorta exaggerated actual tea partier and marxist from the same partly-urbanized congressional district that's like 60% red or blue. Say, you start off thinking the rightwing guy is super into NASCAR just cause he likes to see cars crash or something then it turns out he used to be a mechanical engineer at a Ford plant until they laid everyone off, views it like competitive engine-building, and he can tell who's going to win by the sound of them revving at the startup line; cue a little Rain Man parody. It's not really about them ever meeting in the middle, because then the show's over; they just have to figure out how to live and work together with radically opposed opinions on all this talking point poo poo. Most of the sleaze comedy should come off their clients who need to resort to importing these walking cartoon characters to make themselves look good. I could see the other thing too but that's pretty much half the episodes of It's Always Sunny already A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Actually, given the issues we have based around the oil business and the effects of emissions on the environment, you could make a much better case for the social benefits of limiting private transportation as having a good return on investment. I've actually made an entire thread on it, and unironically agree. We need car control too. Cingulate posted:Here is the result when including # of guns per capita into the model. As you see, gun ownership rate does fuckall (model improvement is as close to zero as you can get), it's still all socioeconomics. (However, I'm not sure this is a good number on rate of gun ownnership. For example, Germany is ranked #25, and I'd argue Germany has comparatively strict laws.) Wait are you testing guns per capita or household ownership?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
edit: double post
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
mugrim posted:I've actually made an entire thread on it, and unironically agree. We need car control too. I remember your car control thread, and what you proposed wasn't "car control" so much as it was a virtual ban on car ownership. Similar to most gun control proposals I guess, right down to the "you can totally own one you just gotta be rich (or at least well enough off that you can spend a couple weeks or months wrestling with onerous restrictions and regulations) first"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:I remember your car control thread, and what you proposed wasn't "car control" so much as it was a virtual ban on car ownership. Similar to most gun control proposals I guess, right down to the "you can totally own one you just gotta be rich first" These will be the only guys who own guns anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg0DEb93bgc&t=280s
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:1 Easy Trick to Screen Out Pink Pistols Yup, among everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yup, among everyone else. Odd that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:local gun control advocate discovered to actually just have a pathological fear of anyone different from him, literally nobody surprised You added the superfluous word "control" here. Not that people who demand unrestricted access to the most expedient means to kill humans, and immediately start threatening murder and insurrection at the drop of a hat when this is even hypothetically threatened, aren't the very picture of Up With People in theory or practice
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Well, we've already seen recently that being sufficiently rich means that engaging in massive securities fraud and being convicted of it won't even cost you your job in the industry. Never kid yourself, money and influence control everything about our legal system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Except the rich. Somehow no matter how many times a rich person gets arrested their name never seems to make it onto those lists. Well, to use the rationale gun fanboys use as to why we shouldn't ban their assault rifles, 100 round mags, or other fringe useless Thundercats kung fu playset accessories: rich people kill relatively few people so banning then from owning firearms is pointless and would be time better spent on something something empty platitudes about mental health
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:rich people kill relatively few people so banning then from owning firearms is pointless Hey guys, you know what's been a crashing success? The No-Fly List! Let's do that for everything!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Wow. I would genuinely love to know how many people in this thread that are anti-gun own sword or knives decorative or not. I have met so many people that are spouting the same arguments I am seeing here that keep swords and knives for self defense and are really upset about the ability of a firearm to kill them no matter how much practice they have put into the sword arts. There are bits about how guns have no honor or that they are not fair and such. If you care about human lives then there are much more important things to worry about than guns. Nobody should be shot. I agree. But poo poo happens. It is a statistical anomaly if you are in a first world country. But until we have star trek phazers that will not happen. The sad fact is that guns are the best resource that we have to make people stop doing things we dont want them to be doing. Be it whatever horrible thing you can think of guns will be there until there is an alternative. And, I will gladly get rid of my guns at that time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 06:51
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:List of amendments to the Constitution gun control advocates are apparently unaware of: 2, 4, 14. Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to purchase them. Nor does being allowed to have guns mean you're allowed to have any and every gun. If a responsible gun owner wants a hunting rifle to hunt, they should clearly be allowed to do so. But if a guy who's idea of gun safety is pulling out his gun when someone grabs their arm wants to get a gun because they want to start killing people in defense of their guns. Maybe that guy shouldn't get that purchase. Mr.Bob posted:Wow. I would genuinely love to know how many people in this thread that are anti-gun own sword or knives decorative or not. I have a knife that was used while hunting, I have also used rifles for the same purpose. I've never carried it around in public or drawn it on someone and waved it around to threaten them. Mr.Bob posted:The sad fact is that guns are the best resource that we have to make people stop doing things we dont want them to be doing. Which is kind of the problem. There are a lot of people who will carry their guns around, completely legally at that, and will gladly use it as an emergency "shut up" option if they don't like how people talk to them. Like, for example, if they try to walk out of an IHOP without paying.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to purchase them. Nor does being allowed to have guns mean you're allowed to have any and every gun. If a responsible gun owner wants a hunting rifle to hunt, they should clearly be allowed to do so. But if a guy who's idea of gun safety is pulling out his gun when someone grabs their arm wants to get a gun because they want to start killing people in defense of their guns. Maybe that guy shouldn't get that purchase. It happens.... and that is not a good thing. But, it has its has consequences. Personally in my life i have never have had a gun drawn on me by anyone. I have lived in some bad areas and you just do your thing. The guy in that post, was stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:
It Is called brandishing and is quite illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to purchase them. Nor does being allowed to have guns mean you're allowed to have any and every gun. If a responsible gun owner wants a hunting rifle to hunt, they should clearly be allowed to do so. They are called muzzle loaders, which anyone on American soil can purchase, provided that they are above the age of eighteen. Edit: This includes cannons, all of them. Applesnots fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Which is kind of the problem. There are a lot of people who will carry their guns around, completely legally at that, and will gladly use it as an emergency "shut up" option if they don't like how people talk to them. Like, for example, if they try to walk out of an IHOP without paying. Funny, this is called brandishing and is already illegal. But I guess if it'll help your feels, we could make it double secret illegal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/r01TBNq.gifv
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
While cool and illegal, it has nothing on it to see where it is pointing. You could throw a stick at it and it would be a wreck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to purchase them. Nor does being allowed to have guns mean you're allowed to have any and every gun. If a responsible gun owner wants a hunting rifle to hunt, they should clearly be allowed to do so. But if a guy who's idea of gun safety is pulling out his gun when someone grabs their arm wants to get a gun because they want to start killing people in defense of their guns. Maybe that guy shouldn't get that purchase. Someone's looking for a visit from the ATF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
update on the ihop gunpointerquote:So the last fees days have been interesting. I will try to keep this as concise as possible. it's got to be fake, the initial story was just dumb enough to be plausible but this is unreal
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
drone = bad gun = good my tiny libertarian mind is tearing itself apart at the seams! (vice versa for tiny liberal minds i guess?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:update on the ihop gunpointer Of course it's fake, unless you think white men who pull guns on minorities are as normally persecuted as this guy claims to be. This guy has a huge victim complex that he is expressing with this fake rear end poo poo. Herp derp I got another gun and went back to talk to the guy I threatened with a gun 
Kibbles n Shits fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
DarthJeebus posted:Of course it's loving fake, unless you think white men who pull guns on minorities are as normally persecuted as this guy claims to be. This guy has a huge victim complex that he is expressing with this fake rear end poo poo. i had a bad roomate who walked around with a concealed pistol because he never felt safe and once caught charges for beating up a stranger while he was trying to "defend a woman's honor" so the guy who pulls his pistol while trying to walk out on an unpaid pancake bill was immediately plausible to me, like i could practically picture the dude's bearded face
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i had a bad roomate who walked around with a concealed pistol because he never felt safe and once caught charges for beating up a stranger while he was trying to "defend a woman's honor" so the guy who pulls his pistol while trying to walk out on an unpaid pancake bill was immediately plausible to me, like i could practically picture the dude's bearded face Oh don't get me wrong, I can totally imagine a brave patriot pulling a gun on a restaurant owner for wanting the check paid, but this story is just smacks of fake rear end gun wank. Or at the very least, heavily embellished to portray himself as an oppressed victim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:List of amendments to the Constitution gun control advocates are apparently unaware of: 2, 4, 14. Repeal 2. 4 is no issue. If the fact that the rich can get around the law is a violation of 14 then it clearly has no power or relevance in general and is thus no specific argument here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
In addition to criminalizing brandishing let's also criminalize carrying a firearm for no reason, the prerequisite of brandishing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
let's go one step further and make being a bad dude illegal imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to purchase them. semper wifi posted:let's go one step further and make being a bad dude illegal imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:But then who will save the president?!?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:update on the ihop gunpointer idk I have no problem believing there's someone this dumb out there and everyone else's responses in this whole thing are basically behind his excusemaking entirely reasonable responses to the jackass pulling an armed dine-and-dash, his story sounds very much like the self-justifying shaggy dog stories of idiots I have known no he was not really staging a Great Escape from pancake ISIS if that's what you mean
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to purchase them. The right to Free Speech doesn't mean you have the Right to own a computer, pencil or pens, or to have anyone write what you are saying down. If you say something the government doesn't like, expect to be prohibited from owning any communication equipment. The right to Protection from Unreasonable Search & Seizures doesn't prevent a "did not co-operate with the police Tax". The right to a Trial by Jury doesn't prevent the Government allowing jurors to opt-out, and setting onerous requirements so most potential jurors do so. With an hour of cleverness I'm sure we could use clever wording tricks to negate the intent of most of the Bill of Rights. quote:If a responsible gun owner wants a hunting rifle to hunt, they should clearly be allowed to do so. But if a guy who's idea of gun safety is pulling out his gun when someone grabs their arm wants to get a gun because they want to start killing people in defense of their guns. Maybe that guy shouldn't get that purchase. Who determines who is a "responsible gun owner"? Criminal history, or is the Gut Feeling of police officers enough? Also Neubot, just to make sure I understood your earlier post correctly: do you believe a gun manufacturer would design a rifle intended purely to kill people (and have no other purpose, not target shooting, not hunting, purely killing people) & then chamber it in 22lr? Because it would save spree killers a small amount of money?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I own a cleaver, a slew of butter knives, steak knives, chef knives, paring knives and carving knives. Same could be applied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:If you're going to take that approach, why not do it for the other amendments? Isn't that the Supreme Court's job
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 11:21
|
|