Wii have a shooting.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Tell me, what part of German history lends you to pacifism? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Shit, the only three good things about Germany is the alcohol, the Saras, and the violence.

Seriously, though, German history is exactly the reason why children have WAR IS BAD WAR IS BAD VIOLENCE IS BAD GUNS ARE BAD SOLDIERS ARE MURDERERS drilled into their heads near-daily (sorry 'bout that last one, dear military forum users, it wasn't me who came up with it).

Our current chancellor had been running in the previous election, too. You know why she didn't make it then? Because the other guy made WE'RE NOT GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ his platform, while she went to see Bush and promised full support if she was to be elected.


On the upside, still three good things about Germany: the alcohol, the Saras and the autobahn.

We Germans are not a warlike people!

/simpsons

Guns were invented to fire pellets of lead over long distances into other people. It really gets me when people like Penguin say, "Hey, guns don't HAVE to kill people - you can just stand there facing the intruder with your hunting rifle and they'll run off."

And sure, they may, but what if they don't? What if they've got a gun? You know, just in case you had one? Then you've got to shoot another living person before they shoot you. The criminals will always carry bigger, more illiegal shit than the civilian.

Just because you don't kill a person with the gun you have doesn't mean the intended use of a gun isn't for killing things.

Incidentally, I agree with Spoonhead. If you're not going to use the gun, why have it? Great, pull a Homer Simpson and have a gun because a house isn't a home until you've got a firearm. Woried about somebody breaking into your house? Get a fucking burglar alarm. And the neat thing about alarms is that they work EVEN WHEN YOU'RE NOT IN THE GODDAMN HOUSE, which is when most burglars will try their luck.

Your gun, however, will not sense that there's an intruder and do some home protecting on its own - in fact it's probably the first thing an intruder looks for to steal.

Quote :

My family generally just wipes surfaces like counters and tables down with a wet cloth (wet with water)

N-no 409?

My mother raised me to be a neat freak. We don't soak everything in bleach, because that's stupid, or use anything fancy for the dishes but I still clean the shit out of the house every weekend from top to bottom because the idea of having sticky counters or dusty furniture drives me a little crazy. Every time I go to a certain friend's house I have a horrible compulsion to clean it and then I feel like a pretentious d-bag because they don't live up to my standard of "clean". Is that wrong? D:

/tangent

If I'm the friend, please feel free to clean

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

My family generally just wipes surfaces like counters and tables down with a wet cloth (wet with water)

N-no 409?

My mother raised me to be a neat freak. We don't soak everything in bleach, because that's stupid, or use anything fancy for the dishes but I still clean the shit out of the house every weekend from top to bottom because the idea of having sticky counters or dusty furniture drives me a little crazy. Every time I go to a certain friend's house I have a horrible compulsion to clean it and then I feel like a pretentious d-bag because they don't live up to my standard of "clean". Is that wrong? D:

/tangent

Hee. I have a friend who is like that: she keeps saying she's not a neat-freak but she is a bit, y'know? Anyway, we were watching movies at my place and I had actually cleaned before their visit; it's just that there's no amount of pre-emptive vacuuming you can do that's going to keep up with a shedding black Lab in the springtime. Eventually, after some fidgeting, she asked if we could pause the movie for a second and she just lunged for the broom. I was like, uh, you're being kind of rude? Things escalated from there.
Nowadays, we just hang out at her place.

In short: cleaning up your friends' houses is rude when it's not, like, the mess you made together. Either avoid the place or learn to deal with, like, dust. It won't kill you.

Unless you're astmatically inclined, like.

...What's all this about a gun?

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Guns were invented to fire pellets of lead over long distances into other people. It really gets me when people like Penguin say, "Hey, guns don't HAVE to kill people - you can just stand there facing the intruder with your hunting rifle and they'll run off."

I never said anything as absolute as that. However, it is likely that when faced with a gun, the vast majority of the time, that stops the confrontation. The other guy either surrenders or flees; statistically this is the case for the overwhelming majority of incidents.

Quote :

And sure, they may, but what if they don't? What if they've got a gun? You know, just in case you had one? Then you've got to shoot another living person before they shoot you.

Yep. Which is why you should never draw down on another human being if you're not prepared for the consequences.

Quote :

The criminals will always carry bigger, more illiegal shit than the civilian.

Horseshit. You know what most criminals use, if they can get guns? Cheap, little pistols they can hide from the public, because nothing sets off suspicion like wearing a ski mask and having a rifle slung over your shoulder. Nobody robs a 7-11 for the $60 they have on-hand with a $1200 weapon. This is a ridiculous notion, yet sadly popular.

Quote :

Get a fucking burglar alarm. And the neat thing about alarms is that they work EVEN WHEN YOU'RE NOT IN THE GODDAMN HOUSE, which is when most burglars will try their luck.

Burglar alarms are pretty much useless. Residential burglar alarms are a joke. "Okay, we'll call the police for you, and your house will go BWEE WEE WEE and annoy your neighbors, who will roll over and cover their ears with an extra pillow." And the number of burglar alarms that are actually responded to is something like 2% of all that go off. They're a joke.

Quote :

Your gun, however, will not sense that there's an intruder and do some home protecting on its own - in fact it's probably the first thing an intruder looks for to steal.

So?

Jay/Cris wrote:

...What's all this about a gun?

This sentence is irrelevant unless we are talking about a gun that shoots poo-poo germs.

To avoid arguing past each other I'll come back to the whole fascination thing.

Tomorrow.

Now, I must DIE.

Malganis wrote:

We use a sponge and dish soap (and rarely a little bleach) for our dishes. We seem to do okay. I actually think it's probably more harmful to constantly clean with harsh cleaning/antibacterial solutions, as it would kill off weaker bacteria and leave behind only the strongest and most resistant. Kind of like how hospitals are actually very dangerous now when it comes to killer, drug-resistant bacteria and viruses - comes from all the use of anti-biotics.

MegaExpensive Deathblaster Bleach -- kills 99.99% of germs, leaves the remaining 0.01% to multiply without competition!

I work with food and we don't use bleach except down the toilets. We use washing up liquid or heavily chlorinated water on everything as we go along and use each bit of equipment once (within reason) before it's washed. Between that and the handwashing, germs that aren't killed outright are washed away or deprived of food and moisture.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Mafiosa wrote:

Quote :

My family generally just wipes surfaces like counters and tables down with a wet cloth (wet with water)

N-no 409?

My mother raised me to be a neat freak. We don't soak everything in bleach, because that's stupid, or use anything fancy for the dishes but I still clean the shit out of the house every weekend from top to bottom because the idea of having sticky counters or dusty furniture drives me a little crazy. Every time I go to a certain friend's house I have a horrible compulsion to clean it and then I feel like a pretentious d-bag because they don't live up to my standard of "clean". Is that wrong? D:

/tangent

Hee. I have a friend who is like that: she keeps saying she's not a neat-freak but she is a bit, y'know? Anyway, we were watching movies at my place and I had actually cleaned before their visit; it's just that there's no amount of pre-emptive vacuuming you can do that's going to keep up with a shedding black Lab in the springtime. Eventually, after some fidgeting, she asked if we could pause the movie for a second and she just lunged for the broom. I was like, uh, you're being kind of rude? Things escalated from there.
Nowadays, we just hang out at her place.

In short: cleaning up your friends' houses is rude when it's not, like, the mess you made together. Either avoid the place or learn to deal with, like, dust. It won't kill you.

Unless you're astmatically inclined, like.

...What's all this about a gun?

Oh no, I know all about animals and their sheddin' ways and your friend sounds like one of mine! I meant more like this person had dishes in their sink piled up from, like, weeks before and crusty food stains on the floor and counters. We were going to make spaghetti in her house but she didn't have a pot to cook it in because she used it a few days ago.

This friend is also Vietnamese, so I took off my shoes before I walked into her house. I cringed whenever I stepped on something crusty in her carpet.

It was narsty.

Mally wrote:

I actually think it's probably more harmful to
constantly clean with harsh cleaning/antibacterial solutions, as it
would kill off weaker bacteria and leave behind only the strongest and
most resistant.

So, you're saying you'd rather face 300 Spartans AND a riot mob 10,000 strong than just face the 300 Spartans?

EXPLAIN THIS BULLSHIT!

grmblfjx wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Tell me, what part of German history lends you to pacifism? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Shit, the only three good things about Germany is the alcohol, the Saras, and the violence.

Seriously, though, German history is exactly the reason why children have WAR IS BAD WAR IS BAD VIOLENCE IS BAD GUNS ARE BAD SOLDIERS ARE MURDERERS drilled into their heads near-daily (sorry 'bout that last one, dear military forum users, it wasn't me who came up with it).

Our current chancellor had been running in the previous election, too. You know why she didn't make it then? Because the other guy made WE'RE NOT GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ his platform, while she went to see Bush and promised full support if she was to be elected.


On the upside, still three good things about Germany: the alcohol, the Saras and the autobahn.

My German history is a little weak (read: nonexistent), but wasn't Germany formed as a nation by Otto von Bismark making proper use of the firebarking end of a gun?

See? Violence is good. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I did totally forget about the autobahn... And the BMWs... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

My German history is a little weak (read: nonexistent), but wasn't Germany formed as a nation by Otto von Bismarck making proper use of the firebarking end of a gun?

Kinda sorta. More of it was pulling a series of epic mindfucks on everyone, including founding members of his very own empire.

Quote :

See? Violence is good. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
Seriously, though, being desensitized to violence is probably more natural in a sense than the opposite.

Quote :

I did totally forget about the autobahn... And the BMWs... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

BMW-Welt Muenchen kicks ass. I should know, I've been there. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

I never said anything as absolute as that. However,
it is likely that when faced with a gun, the vast majority of the time,
that stops the confrontation. The other guy either surrenders or flees;
statistically this is the case for the overwhelming majority of
incidents.

I get that you might need a gun if you live in an rural area, hunt for a living or live in a really crappy neighborhood, but your average middle-class suburban idiot that orders a tall Mocha Cappuccino at Starbucks has no need for a gun. (This, incidentally, seems to be the sort of people most worried about crime, other than hardcore gun fans.) Unless bands of roaming bandits constantly invade his cul-de-sac,
having a gun is overkill, makes him look paranoid and seems an
invitation for trouble.

Maybe the Starbuck people have a point, but look how it makes them look; angry and aggressive. (Reading between the lines, they're taunting Starbucks and the government. They want, on some level, so be startin' something.)

Having gun just... escalates the aggression, so to speak.

Penguin wrote:

Basically, it comes down to an irrational hatred of what a gun is "intended to do." As if crafted with malice in the foremost thoughts of the unholy gunsmith, barrel hammer-forged and quenched in the tears of infants, given the dark blessing of Khorne and primed to bring ill fortune and mishap to whoever is foolish enough to purchase one. Blood for the Blood God, Skulls for the Skull Throne (BOOM HEADSHOT)!

This is a fundamentally absurd notion, even without the exaggeration above. There is no life without death, for one thing. You can push it to the fringes as much as you like, but at the end of the day that chicken dinner you're enjoying used to be clucking about amiably pecking at feed not too long ago.

For another, the notion that GUNS ARE FOR KILLING AND ARE THEREFORE BAD is ridiculously naive, as is the idea that the world would be instantly less violent if guns were to miraculously disappear overnight. It would actually get a lot worse, as it became infinitely easier for the young and physically strong to take whatever they want from virtually whoever they want.

I don't know about you, but where I live, what would happen is that fewer people would die, simply because killing people with guns is a lot easier than with other things, including many other kinds of weapons. As for the young and physically strong, yes it would become easier for them, but it would become harder for everyone else. Net result - reduction in crime and death rates. 

If the depopulation of the police thing would actually happen in your area, then I hate to think what kind of neighbourhood you must live in. If guns make you safer, what it means is that you live in such a dangerous environment already that things can't really get much worse.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

My German history is a little weak (read: nonexistent), but wasn't Germany formed as a nation by Otto von Bismark making proper use of the firebarking end of a gun?

I was talking about more recent German history. The sort of history where my grandmother watched her two toddlers die from diarrhea, in a hospital more or less out of medication, hundreds of miles from home, because some idiots thought it would be cool to get a war going.

This sort of history:

Spoiler:

Quote :

Starbucks says it will allow the guns as long as they're legal. That decision is angering gun control advocates.

I...whu?

Dick Powers wrote:

spoonhead75 wrote:

True. Never claimed that, you know?

According to you all guns have the potential to kill, even unloaded ones that are safely locked away.

And they do. Only that you have to get it out of its safe-place and load it, first. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
A gun that can not be loaded anymore would not freak me. But it would be completely useless, too.

Dick Powers wrote:

You must have missed the part where she said just knowing that there is a gun in a house fills her with fear.

Just like the thought of multiple germs frightens you. Which is why you kill them off with whatever you use - and I don't own a weapon.

Woah, this whole argument is so pointless. Why do I bother at all - you're not even trying to understand my point of view.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Mally wrote:

I actually think it's probably more harmful to
constantly clean with harsh cleaning/antibacterial solutions, as it
would kill off weaker bacteria and leave behind only the strongest and
most resistant.

So, you're saying you'd rather face 300 Spartans AND a riot mob 10,000 strong than just face the 300 Spartans?

EXPLAIN THIS BULLSHIT!

If you take away the mob, the Spartans will multiply without competition. Under ideal conditions bacteria double their number every 20 minutes.
Do the maths, Mikey. It's breathtaking. Lovely little fellows.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Tell me, what part of German history lends you to pacifism? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The "let's make sure this doesn't happen again - twice is more than enough" part.
I wasn't aware it's possible to miss that.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I did totally forget about the autobahn... And the BMWs... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You also forgot about beer. No wait - you have to be 21, right?
Around here you're allowed to have beer at 16.

Where do you spend you holiday this year, Mikey? Want to come over?
Rent a BMW, have a go on the A7, have a beer afterwards and then we'll visit Neuengamme and do something for your education.

You're very wellcome. You may want to bring your own bleach.

What's this fascination with the autobahn, anyway? Speed limit matters?

There are very few places where the speed limit is above 65mph (I don't know what that translates to in km)(I don't even know if there are places that allow over 65mph in the US) I think it has something to do with the government requiring it for funding (Or something).

And anyone who has driven a car with a good engine has at least one time felt the urge to just see how fast the car actually goes, without the threat of great big ticket, license being taken away for reckless driving, etc. (I think there's even potential jail time when you do 20 miles over the speed limit)

Thus, fascination with the Autobahn.

Lapin wrote:

There are very few places where the speed limit is above 65mph (I don't know what that translates to in km)(I don't even know if there are places that allow over 65mph in the US) I think it has something to do with the government requiring it for funding (Or something).

There's plenty of stretches of freeway where the speed limit is 70.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Lapin wrote:

There are very few places where the speed limit is above 65mph (I don't know what that translates to in km)(I don't even know if there are places that allow over 65mph in the US) I think it has something to do with the government requiring it for funding (Or something).

There's plenty of stretches of freeway where the speed limit is 70.

See, I thought there were, but since I wasn't sure, better to just say I didn't know. I seem to be remembering something about the government not giving road funds to states if they don't keep their speed limits under...70mph maybe? I'm probably misremembering though.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Lapin wrote:

65mph

No, 70

Hoo boy. That changes everything.


You see, our neighbouring countries have max speed limits between 75 and 80 mph, and that iiiiis fuuuuckiiiiiiing slooooooow. I'm actually a defensive driver; I rarely speed by more than 5mph, I stick in the slow lane, I don't feel comfortable driving at speeds over 90. But man, I hate having to drive in another country. How do they ever get anywhere?

Mm. Hubbie says 70 m/h are roughly 112 km/h.

That's the average speed limit on the autobahn, too. Varies from 100 to 120.
True, there ARE bits that don't have any speed limits at all. For 5km.

Technically streches up to 35-50km exist, but

then comes a building site. Or the road is damaged. Or deer might cross. Or you're approaching the next exit. Or somebody felt that this was enough driving without speed limit and if there was no sign put up, people might get reckless.

But if you're a responsible driver you wouldn't drive faster than 130, anyway.
That's the recommended speed limit, but it's up to you.

Personally I don't like driving faster than 120/130 km/h.
Driving fast uses up a lot of gas, too - and that makes fun expensive.

I once got to 110mph for a short on my bike... On a track day at a racecourse, before you start paniking.

Couldn't tell you what it was like... I had my eyes closed...

Ceres wrote:

Maybe the Starbuck people have a point, but look how it makes them look; angry and aggressive. (Reading between the lines, they're taunting Starbucks and the government. They want, on some level, so be startin' something.)

Starbucks said they're OK with it, so I don't see how it's taunting them. And they're not doing anything illegal, so it's not taunting the government unless the government is making noises about making it illegal, in which case... fuck man, taunt away.

Anon wrote:

I don't know about you, but where I live, what would happen is that fewer people would die, simply because killing people with guns is a lot easier than with other things, including many other kinds of weapons. As for the young and physically strong, yes it would become easier for them, but it would become harder for everyone else.

This is a misconception that isn't supported by modern statistics or history. For one thing, your typical violent criminal is not an elderly man or a little girl. It's a teens-to-twenties male. Overwhelmingly so. So you're just strengthening the average criminal without doing anything to benefit the law-abiding citizen.

Quote :

Net result - reduction in crime and death rates.

Again, this has never happened. Every time strict gun control laws have been enacted, the net result is pretty much all other forms of violent crime explode. Gun-related violence -justified and criminal- may go down, but it is never proportionate. And that's if the gun control is at least somewhat successful in limiting supplies to criminals. If it's not, as in the case of Chicago and Washington DC,

Quote :

If the depopulation of the police thing would actually happen in your area, then I hate to think what kind of neighbourhood you must live in.

That was based on a hypothetical "all guns go poof" scenario. Basically, in order to have any sort of successful law enforcement at all, your cops would basically have to be young men. Technology is a wonderful thing, you know. Evens the playing field.

Quote :

If guns make you safer, what it means is that you live in such a dangerous environment already that things can't really get much worse.

Not at all, unless you view guns as inherently dangerous in and of themselves. They're not. And if you know how to use one safely, then yes, you're safer than you'd be without one, even if you're in a relatively safe neighborhood.

Dude. Here, the speed limit's pretty much never below 60 or 70mph unless you're in a town. Slow country is slo[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]