Why is the focus on males being stupid so centered around gamers lately? Males in all circles can be stupid. Work at a construction site for instance...
leif3141's forum posts
@thegerg said:
1-Have you actually been diagnosed with depression, or are you just guessing that you're suffering from it?
2- Stop blaming others for your place in life. Your parents can't make you go to a college that you don't want to go to. Take some responsibility for your actions, like an adult.
Man that's a little harsh don't ya think? Don't you remember your first week away from home? Take it easy on the kid a little bit there...
Perhaps you are just homesick? It is a large transition if you are now living on campus than from living at home. My suggestion is get out more when the weather is nice. Maybe try to meet some new people at your college, try joining a game or something being played at the campus? Get good at hacky sack...lol. In all seriousness at a college campus people will want to join you doing that. Don't just sit in your dorm room all day. That is a recipe for more depression. I can attest to this! Getting some sun and fresh air will go a long way. I'd say if you are still feeling this way after a month, you might want to take larger steps. My first experience out of the home was basic training. It was definitely something that made me feel like crap for the first few weeks, being away from everyone I knew. Eventually, it faded with time.
A buddy of mine and I were having a discussion when he asked what new TV shows I was watching. One of them happens to be the last ship, and he started laughing. He just said the show looks bad and asked me what it was like. One of the things I told him was that it was kinda cheesy. He mentioning in passing that he'd seen previews for it during falling skies. And then I replied that is was cheesy in the same way falling skies was cheesy. Well, that got a visible look of frustration/anger on his part then he vehemently disagreed on why it isn't a cheesy show (falling skies). I couldn't understand how he thinks falling skies ISN'T cheesy. I'm not saying its a bad show. But it is kinda cheesy...
So this got me thinking - what do you think a cheesy show means? To me, its over dramatized material that doesn't just quite have the emotional impact that the writers think it will, combined with cliched plots/character interactions, maybe with a little bit of bad acting thrown in. And all this while writers are trying to NOT do this. Even with this description, I still like a lot of cheesy shows :). So this isn't just a knock on what's cheesy...
I do think when shows intentionally try to do this kinda stuff (Xena and Hercules come to mind), that it transitions from cheesy to campy.
What you think?
@Planeforger said:
At what point did anyone think that giving a gun to a kid was a good idea?
It just seems completely unthinkable to me. It'd be like teaching a 9 year old how to properly stab things with a hunting knife (only worse, since the kid with the knife is less likely to accidentally kill someone). It's a recipe for disaster.
If Americans want guns, sure, whatever, go for it. But please try to keep them in the hands of responsible adults, to avoid crap like this.
*Edit*
Just to clarify, in the USA: You can't drive until you're 16-18 (because kids can't be trusted on the road), you can't drink until you're 21 (because teens can't be trusted with alcohol), but you can shoot things when you're 9 (because...um...)?
That's why most halfway intelligent parents MIGHT give their child an air gun to shoot at that age. Maybe a 22. I had a stupid accident with an air gun when I was like 10 or 11...it's not hard for a child that young to have an accident.
And yes, as an American, I've always wondering why guns are legal to shoot so young, yet nothing else seems to be. I know there's young children who CAN shoot young, but with the argument "it's good exposure" when they're young, how come the same rules aren't giving for driving and the like...
@lostrib said:
@timothyrolls said:
@lostrib said:
@timothyrolls said:
A more knowledgeable instructor would have avoided this accident. My prayers go out to the instructors family.
well I'm sure that makes them feel better
*eye roll*
I'm not sure what else I can do for them at the moment.
Well you already did nothing for them, so I mean you can only go up from that
This earned a big lol, even if your kinda being a jerk! :)
Any realistically sane gun advocate does not advocate a 9 year old shooting an Uzi. Don't confuse that with a capable adult shooting a bolt action rifle, or similar.
@airshocker said:
This is a tragic accident but it's really the instructors own fault. He should not have been standing above her as she shot the gun. An automatic Uzi has some insane recoil. A 9 year old wouldn't be able to handle it.
This
@bforrester420 said:
@leif3141 said:
@MBirdy88 said:
@airshocker said:
From a previous post of mine, referring to burglaries in America -
A realistic hypothetical is when you propose a hypothetical situation that actually happens on a daily basis (2 million in one year? Gee...2 million divided by 365? That's over 5000 burglaries a day in the country). So according to FBI crime statistics, there are 2 million breaks per year here on average in America.
So if you have a home breakin, and you are actually home for it, and are not skilled in hand to hand combat or an elderly/short statured/etc against a home attacker...a gun is not appropriate? I agree tasers can be effective- but what if there are two assailants? Tasers haven't really got that covered. Also, better hope you don't miss with a taser, cause its kind of a one hit sort of deal.
FYI, I do believe we could do more to prevent guns from getting in the hands of people who would use it for nefarious purposes - but to just outright ban to most Americans is not the solution. Obviously someone can use a can to devastating effect if they want too, but the people using it for this purposes represents a paltry amount of overall gun owners.
Those break-in statistics are misleading when you just toss out the 2 million statistic. Only 60% of those were forcible entry, and only 73% we on residential property. Unknowns: in how many instances was the homeowner at the residency? How many of those instances were repeat break-ins of the same property? How many of those were not actually burglary but instead staged break-ins for insurance fraud?
When you look at table 23, the vast majority (over half) of the 1.4m reports of residential break-ins occurred during the day, when the homeowner was likely away. So if you had a gun in your residence and your home was burglarized, chances are the criminal walked away with your gun.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/property-crime/burglarymain
I agree the 2,000,000 don't always apply to the hypothetical I proposed, but even if you cut the amount in half due to variables you mentioned, or even down to 500,000, that's still more than housefires per year on average. So its not a statistic like having a piano fall from a building on you, as some claim it being a "unrealistic" hypothetical.
Your second point actually proves my point even further. Who's generally home during the day? People who work odd hours (and therefore may be sleeping), unemployed/disabled folk and retirees. And (hopefully) most people who aren't home during the day lock their guns away in a safe...course, I'm sure that doesn't always happen.
I do advocate guns being a tool of last resort...perhaps even stricter standards for acquiring one. But that option should be available to those who want too...unless we confiscate 300 million already in the country and start anew.
@MBirdy88 said:
@airshocker said:
@MBirdy88 said:
@airshocker said:
@Ackad said:
Guns are tools of death...just like knives, scissors, hammers, saws, and so on. If you carry any of the things that I mentioned, then you cannot lack common on using it properly. It's some of the idiots in America that are giving guns a bad name.
Guns are tools. Just because they can be used to kill doesn't make them tools of death.
Are you saying everyone in America are idiots? If not you may want to change that last sentence.
So... since they are just tools, and not designed to give you an advantage in harming people... why do you need them again?
Because it's my constitutional right.
Not sure why that is relevant to your personal NEED for one. the kinda "because thats the way its always been" sort of near religious level rationalisation is not comforting either. I'm sure it all boils down to that simple feeling of "Empowerment" "I carry a tool *cough* i mean weapon around that can kill people if they harm me" ... must be a good feeling.... I guess... depends how you look at it.... personally a country that relies on this as a foundation doesn't sound like a safer place at all.... just a place for more "lethal accidents"... or worse.
@ Leif ... you raise good points. but then again most countries would say "don't defend yourself, let them take what they want and sort it out afterward" .... now obviously I'm not sure how it all works... but if both parties have guns.... your just asking for a brutal outcome right? I cant comment on the intelligence e of the average burglar but surely it makes sense to them to have a gun regardless.... legal or illegal.... since they know the home owner likely has a gun....
I'm not calling for a ban anymore... its not my business. but my perception of the US having such powerful devices on their person at all times.... with many grey-area factors to consider.... do you really believe your safer in this environment... hell some proof would be even nicer. Bit I feel more than justified to critisize or attempt to understand the pro-gun mentality ... the "TOOL" and "RIGHTS" excuse just doesn't cut it....
Seems more like a d*ck waving contest and a security blanket for adults... while it use to have a place centuries ago....
It would be like peasants in medievil times walking around with friggin crossbows... (only less cumbersome) ..... are they all really safer? they have a device that is banned by the church for being overly lethal and too efficient at killing..... (overruled eventually obviously... because you know.... religeous authority is a fantasy if royalty steps in.)... bit of a rant analogy but the underlying point is its a weapon ,its purpose is to heavily wound or kill..... its empowering, its dangerous ... it effects peoples brains differently.
The availability of guns on their own bring in many psychological factors that may or may not cause people who would not even think it possible before to commit such acts.
So I sort of agree with you on letting a burglar take what they want if they break in. My HOPE is that they would break in and take what they want when my wife and I are at work, and they don't hurt our pets. If we happen to be there, the plan is too stay in the bedroom and call the police. To be honest - I don't have a gun myself - my wife doesn't want one in the house for very personal reasons and I respect that enough to not go against her wishes. I do however own several impact and edged weapons I do plan on using if they try to enter the bedroom. The argument I would make is if it is assumed a burglar has a gun...if a homeowner doesn't plan for some sort of contingency in that regard, aren't they just at the mercy of said criminal if he or she is? To me, I agree that a Taser is the answer for most...but I think for those who want a firearm, it should be available, provided they go through the necessary hoops to obtain it AND Train with it.
I do agree simply stating that is a right seems like a cop out. When the drafters of the constitution wrote it, they knew a firearm as a one shot, long to reload type of deal. It shouldn't be used as an excuse to not examine the situations of today and make appropriate changes if necessary. The thing is - most of the ire of anti-gun people is geared towards long arms - when it should be geared towards handguns. People misuse them much more than long arms. Also, at the federal level, the same requirements to purchase a firearm slightly more powerful than an air rifle (.22lr) are the same as getting a high round capacity semi auto with an incredibly deadly caliber (the EBRs, handguns). Shouldn't a sportsmen looking to get a 5 round capacity shotgun/bolt or lever action rifle face less scrutiny than someone looking to get a 16 round capacity 9mm? As of now, FEDERALLY there isn't much difference aside from someone being 21 or 18. Heck, I need to go through the background check system for a single shot 20 gauge the same as someone looking for an ar15. Even pro-gun rights have to admit that isn't very logical. Maybe we should have some sort of tiered system or something. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't even most European countries offer some sort of legal path to ownership of some firearms?
So does your psychological argument apply to firearms only or just weapons in general? If so I am in trouble...I have nice collection of non-firearm weapons, and have owned a crossbow in the past (though I sold it). Having said that, I actually agree with you about firearms. That's part of the problem. There's this sort of aura perpetuated by some reckless owners that aren't necessarily doing anything illegal, but they act idiotic about them and worship the mystique cool factor (usually young dumb males). A lot of guys don't view them as tools of last resort/incredibly dangerous weapons and have a flippant attitude towards them. I can say from personal experience when handling a firearm, it does feel differently than anything else.
Log in to comment