NEWS: Students With Concealed Weapons: Worst Idea Ever

If you don't think calling someone an idiot is a personal attack, you're an idiot.

I have put forward arguments which you have (IIRC) failed to refute, about the nature of firearms and how they are sold. If you think that makes me an idiot, you have failed to explain why. Single-syllable words, perhaps?

Well, fine. Thank you, that's part of where I've been going. You're the only pro-gun person here who's ever seen that as a cause-and-effect relationship.

Beg to differ. Cultural values - and, more importantly, sales points - can change. In particular, I see a clear link between American gunmakers and American warmakers. Whence the M16 comment above.

I understand that you asked a question vis-a-vis Malkav11's OG post. I was replying to him and you (call me a multi-tasker).

My response to him was included in all those facts and analysis I outlined in regards to small insurgent forces fighting larger conventional forces. He was saying "we're fucked", and I was showing him why we are not necessarily fucked if history is any help. I gave plenty of evidence.

I was also responding to you by explaining HOW an asymmetric campaign might "play out".

Sure, sure, I did assume some things about your position in my little epistle, but for the most part I was answering your question and offering a rejoinder to Maklav11.

All in all it was pretty effective in my opinion.

At any rate, why don't you refute any of my assertions instead of ignoring them.

Leftist, guerilla campaigns REQUIRE small arms, the very kind you seem to think should be regulated/outlawed.

I showed you how/why.

Prove me wrong.

Deal?

BTW the pic I included is of my cache. It is all 100% legal and I do buy them for the looks partilally... but so what? Form follows function... and my weapons are functional as fuck. The main reason I buy them is to prepare for the eventuality we all know is coming: revolution (circa 20??)

Being British you should understand on a deep historical level how vulnerable a Great Power is to relatively ill-equipped guerilla campaigns. Although the British may be as stupid in this regard as most Americans (who still seem oblivious to it... see: IRAQ)




______________________________________________________


Oh dear. No I was not replying to malkav11. Go read it again.

And if you think you can reply to two people at once, on these boards, then you haven't been paying attention, whether you've been here since 2004 or not.

I think you may be a bit vulnerable in the "fail to refute" dept. It seems you're all too happy to ignore that which you cannot refute yourself.

You keep arguing about the BREAD in the shit sandwich I've set before you.

Let's get it on! lol.

This has nothing to do with you. Why are you replying to it?

And if you have an actual argument, please explain it.

I understand that you asked a question vis-a-vis Malkav11's OG post. I was replying to him and you (call me a multi-tasker).

My response to him was included in all those facts and analysis I outlined in regards to small insurgent forces fighting larger conventional forces. He was saying "we're fucked", and I was showing him why we are not necessarily fucked if history is any help. I gave plenty of evidence.

I was also responding to you by explaining HOW an asymmetric campaign might "play out".

Sure, sure, I did assume some things about your position in my little epistle, but for the most part I was answering your question and offering a rejoinder to Maklav11.

All in all it was pretty effective in my opinion.

At any rate, why don't you refute any of my assertions instead of ignoring them.

Leftist, guerilla campaigns REQUIRE small arms, the very kind you seem to think should be regulated/outlawed.

I showed you how/why.

Prove me wrong.

Deal?

BTW the pic I included is of my cache. It is all 100% legal and I do buy them for the looks partilally... but so what? Form follows function... and my weapons are functional as fuck. The main reason I buy them is to prepare for the eventuality we all know is coming: revolution (circa 20??)

Being British you should understand on a deep historical level how vulnerable a Great Power is to relatively ill-equipped guerilla campaigns. Although the British may be as stupid in this regard as most Americans (who still seem oblivious to it... see: IRAQ)




______________________________________________________


Oh dear. No I was not replying to malkav11. Go read it again.

And if you think you can reply to two people at once, on these boards, then you haven't been paying attention, whether you've been here since 2004 or not.


Sure sure you were replying to the other guy, but my point still obtains-- you were asking how "it" was going to "play out". Yes?

You like to argue minutia instead the MEAT. Why?

I am an anarchist so your timid rules vis-a-vis "reply[ing] to two people at once" are beneath me. Just answer my damn points or quit pretending to be honest/honorable. Deal?

No deal?

This is a joke right?

I can butt into any post/thread I like, my friend. I don't need fucking permission (especially from some British faux-leftist-- we had a revolution to be able to ignore you blokes with impunity a long time ago-- thank satan).

My argument has been reiterated ad nauseam at this point: LEFT-WING guerilla campaigns need small arms (even semi-auto ones) to capture military/police arms (full-auto ones) in the beginning phases of the insurgency. This is why semi-auto carbines are USEFUL against a larger conventional force.

THIS IS HOW IT WOULD PLAY FUCKING OUT! in regards to your query.

You ignore this one more time and I'm gonna pull my dick off (and eat it!) lol.

Come on my chap, gives us a break...

You still aren't getting it. You are being Mr Anarchist while I am trying to talk to someone else, and you complain I'm ignoring you? Maybe I'm an anarchist too.

If you do pull your dick off and eat it, please post pics. kthxbye.

I understand that you asked a question vis-a-vis Malkav11's OG post. I was replying to him and you (call me a multi-tasker).

My response to him was included in all those facts and analysis I outlined in regards to small insurgent forces fighting larger conventional forces. He was saying "we're fucked", and I was showing him why we are not necessarily fucked if history is any help. I gave plenty of evidence.

I was also responding to you by explaining HOW an asymmetric campaign might "play out".

Sure, sure, I did assume some things about your position in my little epistle, but for the most part I was answering your question and offering a rejoinder to Maklav11.

All in all it was pretty effective in my opinion.

At any rate, why don't you refute any of my assertions instead of ignoring them.

Leftist, guerilla campaigns REQUIRE small arms, the very kind you seem to think should be regulated/outlawed.

I showed you how/why.

Prove me wrong.

Deal?

BTW the pic I included is of my cache. It is all 100% legal and I do buy them for the looks partilally... but so what? Form follows function... and my weapons are functional as fuck. The main reason I buy them is to prepare for the eventuality we all know is coming: revolution (circa 20??)

Being British you should understand on a deep historical level how vulnerable a Great Power is to relatively ill-equipped guerilla campaigns. Although the British may be as stupid in this regard as most Americans (who still seem oblivious to it... see: IRAQ)




______________________________________________________


Oh dear. No I was not replying to malkav11. Go read it again.

And if you think you can reply to two people at once, on these boards, then you haven't been paying attention, whether you've been here since 2004 or not.


Sure sure you were replying to the other guy, but my point still obtains-- you were asking how "it" was going to "play out". Yes?

You like to argue minutia instead the MEAT. Why?

I am an anarchist so your timid rules vis-a-vis "reply[ing] to two people at once" are beneath me. Just answer my damn points or quit pretending to be honest/honorable. Deal?

No deal?


Basic rules of courtesy apply. If you want to talk to me, for whatever reason, then you have no choice but to provide a minimum level of courtesy. Otherwise, I see no reason to talk to you. Turn it round, see how you'd react if I did the same to you.

And frankly, I wanted to know what [member-LSlice]'s position was. Which was my original point, and which you have chosen to ignore and stomp all over. Thanks. If you act like a grownup, you might be treated like one.

No I don't see how I am moving the goal posts.

The UK had an upswing of crime in that time period it makes sense that criminals would even a small portion would look to getting a gun to help facilitate crimes at the same time you had a near total ban on civilian weapons to the point where almost no one can have a gun legally. the criminals simply found another source for their guns, the eastern bloc.

can you show some proof that changing the cosmetic features of weapons will somehow reduce their desirability in criminals? I have supplied actualy evidence to back up my points even going as far as to post a link showing where most illegal guns come from, you have yet to show any supporting evidence to back up your claims that making guns less pretty would somehow make people want them less.

I understand that you asked a question vis-a-vis Malkav11's OG post. I was replying to him and you (call me a multi-tasker).

My response to him was included in all those facts and analysis I outlined in regards to small insurgent forces fighting larger conventional forces. He was saying "we're fucked", and I was showing him why we are not necessarily fucked if history is any help. I gave plenty of evidence.

I was also responding to you by explaining HOW an asymmetric campaign might "play out".

Sure, sure, I did assume some things about your position in my little epistle, but for the most part I was answering your question and offering a rejoinder to Maklav11.

All in all it was pretty effective in my opinion.

At any rate, why don't you refute any of my assertions instead of ignoring them.

Leftist, guerilla campaigns REQUIRE small arms, the very kind you seem to think should be regulated/outlawed.

I showed you how/why.

Prove me wrong.

Deal?

BTW the pic I included is of my cache. It is all 100% legal and I do buy them for the looks partilally... but so what? Form follows function... and my weapons are functional as fuck. The main reason I buy them is to prepare for the eventuality we all know is coming: revolution (circa 20??)

Being British you should understand on a deep historical level how vulnerable a Great Power is to relatively ill-equipped guerilla campaigns. Although the British may be as stupid in this regard as most Americans (who still seem oblivious to it... see: IRAQ)




______________________________________________________


Oh dear. No I was not replying to malkav11. Go read it again.

And if you think you can reply to two people at once, on these boards, then you haven't been paying attention, whether you've been here since 2004 or not.


Sure sure you were replying to the other guy, but my point still obtains-- you were asking how "it" was going to "play out". Yes?

You like to argue minutia instead the MEAT. Why?

I am an anarchist so your timid rules vis-a-vis "reply[ing] to two people at once" are beneath me. Just answer my damn points or quit pretending to be honest/honorable. Deal?

No deal?


Basic rules of courtesy apply. If you want to talk to me, for whatever reason, then you have no choice but to provide a minimum level of courtesy. Otherwise, I see no reason to talk to you. Turn it round, see how you'd react if I did the same to you.

And frankly, I wanted to know what [member-LSlice]'s position was. Which was my original point, and which you have chosen to ignore and stomp all over. Thanks. If you act like a grownup, you might be treated like one.

FIRSTLY:

I see, so no 3rd party can enter the fray? Is this your actual policy?

Do you, yourself, adhere to it? I am dubious...

SECONDLY:

You asked what my argument was and I explained it.

Now you want some show of courtesy? How do I show it?

How about an apology? Ok--- I am sorry for butting in.

Can you now answer my point about the need for small arms (semi-auto) by civilians?

This seems relevant, so please sir, if you can... rebut me.

There. Fixed so the conversation isn't so fucking confusing as to who said what.

I think I cleaned it up enough to be readable again

i'm not seeing any points of yours that i haven't knocked down like tenpins. your point depends on the assumption that people won't buy guns if guns don't look cool--er, excuse me, don't look like military weapons. that assumption is false. my experience with gun buyers--and as a former member of the armed services, as well as being an amateur gun enthusiast myself, i know a lot of gun buyers--is that most of them buy based on functionality, price, and availability, roughly in that order. the few who do base their decision to purchase a gun on how the gun looks--that is to say, those who would not buy a gun at all if they could not buy a gun that looked 'military' or otherwise 'cool'--are unlikely to lose their weapons, have them stolen, or use them in pursuit of a crime.

cultural values can shift over time, yes--generally long periods of time. sales points do change over time, frequently very quickly, which is part of why banning guns based on sales points won't work. ten years pass, and all of the sudden the visual features which made certain guns more desirable are out of fashion, which means any laws based on those visual features no longer have any teeth.

a request to everyone involved--please quote responsibly. if you really find it necessary to include massive nests of long quotes, please do everyone the courtesy of hiding them in a spoiler tag.

THIS

Interesting discussion to be sure... and I'm not sure where I stand on this. Seriously, I couldn't figure shit out in college and it took me until my late 20's to get a grip on life, so yeah, I shouldn't have been able to have a gun-luckily, I knew enough about myself not to get one. Years later, as a permit-wielding citizen, I carry and generally avoid college campuses if I can at all help it.

You can't have it both ways though.

Either you search every single person going onto a campus for weapons or you have to allow people to carry them. Criminals don't f'ing care what the laws are and they are the ones starting shit. It is a cliche, but true- if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them.

You can put it back in the box, Pandora.

If I cannot protect myself legally, I'll stay away by my own volition and respect the easy kill zone that you have created. This is primarily why online degrees are great in my opinion! Of course, you could try to take everyone's guns away, but good luck at that...

It's all a big mess and we aren't going to solve it anytime soon. I'd carry at work, if only they'd let me, but they won't and I respect that. As my boss says, "If there's a gun in the room, I'm 100% more likely to be able to be shot than if there isn't a gun in the room."

In the end, it all comes down to self-control and college students don't have it (in the most general of terms). But let's face it, neither do emotionally disturned people. So, the only way I see this working is if you provide some level of security for non-capable, unarmed college students from responsible armed people, to fend of the folks that have no self-control.

Didn't we used to call those people Police?

I know a girl in PA who painted her gun pink and decked it out with hello kitty decals.

By the way, check out this article last year about some of the unforseen consequences of the UN's disarmament program.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/118708.html

But you're making my point for me.

A relevant example.

And another. That's the second longest thread in that group. (I'm sure you know that.)

This idiot thinks a live weapon makes a good ornament. British, I know. But that's part of why I'm posting here. In the last three months I've seen posters for GTA 4 which treat firearms as "fashion accessories" (your term, not mine).

I can't imagine why-- even after my apology-- you still won't address the issue of genuine Leftists needing semi-auto carbines/rifles in the initial stages of an insurrection as ALL guerilla warfare manuals admit?


You asked for my point-- and there it is. Will you address it please?

I assume you're talking to me. Firstly, I think your question is specious; AFAICT there aren't enough genuine Leftists in the USA for it to be relevant. Secondly, I still can't tell what your point is.

Wow 2 years for displaying a weapon he thought had been deactivated simply because it's a gun. 1 month for 64 grams of pot.

As for the links you posted you are trying to prove a point that you still have yet to supply concrete evidence to support. All you have shown so far is that yes people do discuss cool looking weapons but that still does not prove your point.