Spring RTS Engine

tombom wrote:7) He has a brother

I lol'd

But yeah, its bad enough with adults carrying guns
14 year olds with guns terrify me..

rattle wrote:You might as well hand guns out to chimpanzees.

Anyway I think one thread about guns is enough. Especially now that it was OVER 9000 pages long, full of self-righteous speeches and other uninteresting crap.

This one?

http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtop ... sc&start=0

I still think an armed populace is a good idea, but there needs to be more emphasis on gun etiquette. I've gone shooting before and I've met alot of people with guns who had the proper respect for guns and the way they are handled, even some who didn't own guns. The problem is when people get ahold of illegal guns(which can happen in any country) or people get ahold of others' guns because they weren't properly secured. I'll point you to a very informative referance for the need of an armed populace, Red Dawn. This is a very moving biography of a group of teenagers in the Soviet invasion of the US, which happened a few years ago, and clearly demonstrates the need for publicly available guns. Although the US pushed the Soviets back and ultimately caused thier downfall which created a democratic Russia, these teenagers must not be forgotten, thier's and others' guerilla tactics against the Soviet occupiers helped in the war towards the final victory.


"WOLVERINES!" indeed.....

Let's just lock this now, before it becomes EUROSOCIALIST VS REDNECK GUNZ THREAD VERSION 2.

lulz...

TBH, I could count on our populace to sit in their back yard watching football and sipping beer as soviet tanks rolled over their fences. Not to mention, if we teach everyone more about how to handle guns, mass murderers will kill more in a place where we can't have guns... Example? Schools...

Let's just count the problems:
1) A 14(?)-year-old can use a gun
2) A 14-year-old believes he can carry a gun into school without anybody caring (which would probably explain the quality of his spelling)
3) A 14 year old has a gun.
4) He believes he is so good at shooting that he can beat an insane guy with the advantage of surprise and I'd imagine a better gun.
5) He didn't notice BigSteve was being sarcastic
6) He says "for some facts" and proceeds to say something very vague with no backup.
7) He has a brother

1) I did not say I could use a gun, although I'm not a bad shot.
2) I did not say that ether, of course people will care but who wants to try and shot somebody if they are going to immediately have ten 9mm unloaded into them? For spelling, I am in ninth grade I think you can give me a little leeway in that department.
3) I have two guns.
4) I said me and my brother I did not mean ME I meant he and I. How can you know that he will have a better gun than myself and my brother?
5) Ok you have a point there, I don't catch sarcasm vary well.
6) Ok a bad on my part, I will be backing up this with some facts I just need to find the site that I am looking for.
7) Yes, I have a brother and I don't see any point that has on this topic

But yeah, its bad enough with adults carrying guns
14 year olds with guns terrify me..

Why? I'm a responsible person that respects guns and what they can do.
tombom you spelled surprise incorrectly.

Read this
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
Facts

I might add that I learned how to safely fire and maintain a rifle at age 12. I don't see how that's a problem, regardless of your views on guns in general. Safety rules were drilled endlessly BEFORE I even touched a gun. I haven't shot anyone yet.

you guys do realize that this was done with an ak 47 right? That gun is outriught illegal. So is any "machine/submachinegun"

Legal guns are not the problem. It's the fact that people can get their hands on guns illegally that is the problem.

Banning guns would only make the problem worse. Cause at that point the general population has no real defense vs people that have illegal guns.

Also, interestingly enough, you can bet your ass that no country would ever try to invade the United States... If you make it though the military you still have to make it through the entire population.

If everyone of legal age was packing a gun at all times (not saying that this should be the way) things like this would be extremely rare if not unheard of. We do have a thing in the US called Citizens arrest ya know.

As an added note. Gun training and safety is nothing to be sneezed at in the US. It is very thorough and intensive.

Before someone makes and ass out of themselves commenting on the above... Obviously someone with an illegal machine gun did not go through any sort of training nor are all their ducks in a row.

Catalyst726 wrote:nonsense about Red Dawn being a biographical work

i really hate to burst the little bubble you got going there, but Red Dawn is a work of fiction. ie ITS NOT REAL. prety much invalidates your entire post.

Either that or Catalyst726 hails from some kind of bizarre alternate universe...possibly penned by Harry Turtledove.

On a serious note, an armed population only goes well with a well educated population that doesn't want to kill everyone. And, for the most part, this is true. It's the exceptions that ruin everyone else's day.

Guns are awesome great flamewars are had about them on forums. In fact so much so that it almost looks like political discussion and because it is SO close it eventually does become political discussion. So why are political discussions allowed here? All they do is bring into public your very personal beliefs, they never get anywhere and we have had this debate before? So could this thread be arguably quite redundant and perhaps even considered spam?

I've said what I'm going to say so lock it if you want

smoth wrote:Guns are awesome great flamewars are had about them on forums. In fact so much so that it almost looks like political discussion and because it is SO close it eventually does become political discussion. So why are political discussions allowed here? All they do is bring into public your very personal beliefs, they never get anywhere and we have had this debate before? So could this thread be arguably quite redundant and perhaps even considered spam?

Political discussions are allowed because some people like having political discussions and can handle people (gasp!) disagreeing with them. Those who do not care for political discussions are free to refrain from reading or commenting in them!

Notwithstanding, this thread IS rapidly turning into a repeat of the last guns thread - so there's no reason to start over. If more discussion needs to be had on this issue, someone can bump the old one so that it's all in one place. That is, unless the old one is locked, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

The old one is not locked.

Felix the Cat wrote:Political discussions are allowed because some people like having political discussions and can handle people (gasp!) disagreeing with them. Those who do not care for political discussions are free to refrain from reading or commenting in them!

Correct but I was making the point that this was just an issue that has already been discussed in detail. It went past: hey some christian nutjob, to lol gun debate, which then goes into dickwaging and poltical pissing contests.

smoth wrote:

Felix the Cat wrote:Political discussions are allowed because some people like having political discussions and can handle people (gasp!) disagreeing with them. Those who do not care for political discussions are free to refrain from reading or commenting in them!

Correct but I was making the point that this was just an issue that has already been discussed in detail. It went past: hey some christian nutjob, to lol gun debate, which then goes into dickwaging and poltical pissing contests.

I bumped the old thread for discussion to theoretically continue there. I suppose that would make us both happy? As always, you are free not to view or contribute if that is not your desire.

yeah, I saw that. good call on the bump.