Also you all are some of the most ignorant close minded fucks I've ever had the misfortune to even virtually encounter.

"Also you all are some of the most ignorant close minded fucks I've ever had the misfortune to even virtually encounter."

:|

You're painting with an awfully broad brush there, Sic...

@Sic - you know I don't give a fuck about a person's sexual orientation. You can fucking fuck who you want as long as it is consentual and the person is of the age of consent. If your my friend, your my friend. So long as you don't hit on me (i'm happily married so you better be a smokin' hot chick if you do), I'll stay your friend for life and defend your right to live your life in whatever way makes you happy.

So please don't lump me in as intolerant. Thanks!

P.S. I just had to say "fucking fuck". The alliteration was just so perfectly sublime.

@ Sis "Also you all are some of the most ignorant close minded fucks I've ever had the misfortune to even virtually encounter."
really. I found this debate unusually balanced. And plenty of us are on your side. I find that unfair also.

@ Jamiet99UK

I don't know about you Brits, but I do know that we Americans have a right to carry/drive whatever we want to. RPG? If you can get your hands on one, and you have the right license, sure. Howitzer? Where are you going to shoot it? Okay, whatever. Second Amendment. Tank? As long as it's street legal and you can afford one. (They cost millions of dollars). Yeah. I just said all that. I want to reiterate that like all rights not reserved for criminals, the Second Amendment applies for every adult. If I'm law-abiding, have no history of a felony or violent misdemeanor, mentally stable, and know how to use whatever I carry, what's wrong with it? Like I said, it's a crime deterrant. People are nicer to each other when they don't know if the other person has a gun or not.

@ Sicarius

I thought you were an anarchist. You should be on my side on this one. Whatever. If a queer touches my arm in a suggestive way and speaks to me in a suggestive way (relative terms, I know), that's sexual harrasment. I sure as shit have a right to defend myself with the gun that I have a right to carry.

@ Mafialligator

Sure. Women have just as many rights as men. They can carry guns and defend themselves from any sexually harassing fuckers. But "Do you come to this bar often?" probably doesn't count as sexual harrasment. Physical contact does.

As for the "gay panic defense" thing, pasting the queer is probably overkill (no pun intended). Guns are pretty scary. If someone pulls a gun on me, I'll do what (s)he says. Common sense. People have a right to defend themselves with firearms. Straight or gay.

I wasnt talking to all of you. If you dont think it was directed at you it probably wasnt. It's just ignorance astounds me, and a few people on this site seem to be especially ignorant.
Some of the comments I've borne here stopped just short of telling me "we ought to send your kind back to afri-queer".

I'm an anarchist so I should support your decision to pull a gun on someone who thinks you're cute? I'm not really on board with your homophobia there friendo.

Yeah, see I figured you were just homophobic. Turns out you're just completely nuts. And have a very very very loose definition of sexual harassment. Next time someone touches your arm suggestively, try simply saying "Please don't touch me. It's making me uncomfortable." I think until someone is actually trying to bend you over a table and pull your pants down, pulling a gun is still a ludicrous overreaction.

what a bunch of homophobic children!!!
don't flatter yourselves that anyone of the same sex thinks ur "smokin'" or hot, cos odds are it's less of a % than those who think u are hot of the same sex.
Get a fcuking grip, lol

"People are nicer to each other when they don't know if the other person has a gun or not."

so people are nicer out of pure fear they might get shot? wow... sounds like we should instiagte martial law across the whole world right now. put those fucking guns everywhere and there would be no crime!

"If a queer touches my arm in a suggestive way and speaks to me in a suggestive way (relative terms, I know), that's sexual harrasment. I sure as shit have a right to defend myself with the gun that I have a right to carry."

wtf... you have some issues. defend yourself?? from a touch???

*shakes head in disbelief*

i support people's rights to own guns if they are mentally stable and responsible and meet the proper criteria. just reading that post. you should not be allowed within 10 feet of one

i think the anti-gun lobby now has a real reason to lobby against guns- look at the likes of the sick puppy who thinks his shit doesn't stink and needs to pull a gun on anyone who touches him?!

shame the doctor didn't "touch" you and flush u down the toilet at birth

@TMW - you do *not* have a right to pull a gun on someone for sexual harrasment and you clearly do not know the definition fo sexual harassment. One proposition in a bar is *not* sexual harassment. Even asking someone out at work isn't. To be sexual harassment it has to be a) unwanted and b) once informed it is unwanted, the person has to repeat it. The only exception to this is the employer/employee relationship where the implication that the job depends on it is instant harassment.

How do I know this? Because I, like most white collar employees, have to go through bi-annual training on this subject. Once again I have to wonder just how old you are to not know what qualifies as sexual harrasment and to not know that, even if you were harrased that the threat of deadly force can only be applied as a response to a threat to your or someone else's life.

Once again, you go back to being Diplofool, WebDiplomacy's resident juster and complete fucking idiot..

*jester, not juster.

lol Diplofool. niiiice

"i think the anti-gun lobby now has a real reason to lobby against guns- look at the likes of the sick puppy who thinks his shit doesn't stink and needs to pull a gun on anyone who touches him?!"

Meh. You ban guns, he'll get one illegally. Then the law-abiding gay guy can't do shit about it.

"Law-abiding"? Clearly TMW would only shoot the guy if he did something heinous like touch him on the arm. Sexual harassment is a serious crime. *Sarcasm*

(That's sarcasm about touching someone on the arm is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment actually is a serious crime.)

Oh fuck, you're right, my bad.

Well perhaps we need genetic screening so people like him NEVER get the chance to hurt anyone let alone a gay guy/girl.

Point being, it's not the guns that do damage, it's the illiterate, ill-educated, neanderthals that hold them

toughing someone on the arm is "inappropriate" not sexual harassment, though the law is unclear(at least here, on that). Sexual harassment is simply what the majority of people would find offensive in a particular situation, so it all depends on where and when the arm was touched lol

"Point being, it's not the guns that do damage, it's the illiterate, ill-educated, neanderthals that hold them"

Agreed. (...so then do you favor gun control? I got the reverse impression, but maybe I'm wrong.)

Also, what's up, De Gaulle? Been a little while.

I've mostly been staying out of the gun related section of this debate, but I've had a thought. It's just, most of the western world does not have an equivalent to the second amendment. The right to bear arms, is not considered a fundamental right in most countries, and a lot of these countries have lower rates of violent crime than the US. Now, lots of people in other countries also own guns, but it varies from country to country. Nearly everywhere though, rates of gun ownership are lower than in the states. I'm not saying that the availability of guns increases the crime rate. That's just too simplistic. Still it seems to indicate to me that gun ownership is not necessary for crime prevention. There are other ways, and frankly...it looks like they're working? I'm not advocating gun control here. I'm just pointing out that the "If people could defend themselves with their own guns then crime wouldn't occur" argument makes sense on paper...but in practice, in reality which we can observe, it doesn't hold up quite as well. Perhaps it's due for some re-evaluation?

"I'm just pointing out that the "If people could defend themselves with their own guns then crime wouldn't occur" argument makes sense on paper...but in practice, in reality which we can observe, it doesn't hold up quite as well."

Could you cite some statistics? My understanding -- and I admit I lack the stats myself -- is that the US's crime rate is not appreciably higher than the rest of the Western world. Sure, we can perhaps as a nation get away with gun control... but why not allow the Tulsa woman to defend herself?

"so people are nicer out of pure fear they might get shot? wow... sounds like we should instiagte martial law across the whole world right now. put those fucking guns everywhere and there would be no crime!"

Granted that TMW's phrasing was bad, but with regard to potential criminals, is it not *good* for them to "be nicer" (read: not commit crimes as frequently if at all) out of fear of being shot? Wouldn't we *want* a deterrent against criminals?

Granted, this only refers to homicide data, and the source is Wikipedia, but..."In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9). ... Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark. Overall the homicide rate in the United States was similar to that of some lesser developed Eastern European countries."

I just think that if more people owning guns was an effective deterrent, we'd see a lower murder rate in a country with more guns, but instead we see the opposite. Now stats can always be misleading. I totally suggest taking all of this with a grain of salt. And I'm totally not saying it proves that gun control is a good idea. All I'm saying is, if widespread gun ownership, and the legality of carrying a concealed firearm is an effective deterrent to violent crime, there certainly is no reliable empirical evidence to show that.

On a less practical note. Carrying a weapon with which to defend yourself means, you may find yourself in a position where you are forced to kill another person. This isn't a matter to be trifled with. I think it's important that you actually sit back and think about the implications of killing someone else. Essentially what you're saying is "My life matters more than this person's. It is acceptable that he should die so that I can live." and anyone who can make that determination easily and without hesitation...well I'd be very reluctant to put a firearm in their hands.

I realized that last musing could be misinterpreted. I'm not saying that self defense is a bad thing, or that you should let yourself be killed rather than harm someone else. I'm just saying, it's not totally cut and dried, black and white. Whatever they've done, whatever they're in the process of doing, killing another human being is a big deal. And bearing that in mind, I'm happier (perhaps not safer, but happier) leaving my protection in the hands of the police, and in the strength of social norms that make it unlikely that I will find myself in that situation. Essentially, I'll take my chances being unarmed.

@Mafia - You mistakenly equate the availability of owning guns with the freedom of concealed carry. Only 37 States issue concealed carry as a "right", with a few more that have the option upon local law enforcement approval. But more importantly, in all of those one has to apply for the concealed carry license as well as the gun permit and the concealed carry license has much more stringent requirements to be met, including specialized training (many require it from local law enforcement) to be granted the license.

I don't own a weapon. I carried one in the Marines and have no desire for one now. But I live in a part of the Greater Cincinnati area where people still routinely leave their garages open during the day and even at night so they don't get to hot and most owners have shotguns or hunting rifles (fairly rural out here in Hebron). If I were a downtowner, I might own a handgun and might even get the concealed carry in case I had to go out to a less desirable part of downtown after dark. But I really don't ever want to own one.

My brother, on the other hand, is in law enforcement, owns a number of handguns, rifles, and shotguns, and naturally carries his Glock and his badge with him at virtually all times (although he knows to not bring it in my house and to lock it in his glove box if he comes over). Yet in more than 15 years of law enforcement, he says he's never had to use it off duty or on (unless that has changed recently) and he says that since Ohio started issuing concealed carry permits his fellow officers have seen a reduction in gun-related crimes in the smaller suburban cities around Cincinnati. Most of the muggings and other gun-crimes have stayed in the inner city/urban areas wher the criminals have always carried guns and it tends to be drug-related where nobody has a permit for a handgun anyhow (and couldn't get one with their criminal records), much less a concealed carry permit.

Clarification, most *gun* owners have shotguns or rifles *only*. Most residents out here don't even have a gun of any sort.

You're very right. The situation is incredibly complex, and that's exactly why I'm being very very hesitant about drawing any firm conclusions. Essentially all I'm saying is, I don't think there is evidence to conclude that citizens carrying concealed weapons is actually an effective way of deterring crime. I'm not saying it proves that concealed carry is not effective. All I'm saying is that people seem to take that idea that it is effective for granted, when really, we have no reason to make a conclusion on the matter either way.

@ PresidentEden,

Been in Hospital for surgery, so been away so to speak.

And i don't think anyone has the right to defend themselves(unless it's from the government, lol).

After all, is that not what our armies and police forces are all about?
So why do Americans need guns?

Well, De Gaulle, you may not think it, but thankfully the people of the USofA do feel, as did the founders, that we have the right to life which means we have the right to defend that life should someone else try to take it. So yes, I do have the right to kill someone if they are threatening me or my family and the courts have upheld that right time and time again (not for me personally as I choose not to own a gun).