| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 09 2014 23:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I thought I made it clear I was mocking him? Unless you truly believe that cats have a 360 degree radar system in their heads. Can't it be both  | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On September 09 2014 23:53 Sermokala wrote: you can in some states and in all states if you say that the dog was coming to bite your throat off. the 20mm autocanon will probably be banned and that'll be where you get into trouble. idk how you're suppose to fire off an aircraft weapon and explain it to people. A SAM would probably ruin your entire house but would be legal if you had a $50 stamp from the right government agency. Anything bigger than 12.7mm is a destructive device according to the ATF and requires quite a bit of paperwork to acquire, at least for your first DD. After the first, you don't need to fill out most of it to get a second DD, they'll accept proof that you've already passed their requirements instead. Destructive devices are not outright banned by Federal law, but some states and municipalities ban them. As for shooting someone's pet on your property, its an iffy situation. If you live in the suburbs, there would be laws against shooting for any reason other than self-defense, because of the proximity of other people's houses. So in the suburbs, that dog has to be coming right for your throat, and might also need records showing a past history of trying to bite people. In a more rural setting where shooting is less regulated, you probably don't need to prove self-defense. You might still end up facing a civil suit though. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
Yup. Cats are actually ridiculously well equipped for warfare, relatively to their size and fluffiness. Anyone who owns a cat can tell you all about those long range rotative parabolic sound dishes they call ears. They track you down and silently slit your throat with retractable claws ("open-carry" my ass: this isn't the stuff of stealthy killers). Due to their neatly crafted high-powered mechanical propulsion system coupled with an autonomous self-balancing attachment, the things can just come from anywhere to finish you off. Hence the surface to air missile. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23514 Posts
On September 09 2014 22:40 ZenithM wrote: Btw, can I shoot someone's pet (a cat or a dog) on my property? If yes to the previous question, can I do it with a 20mm autocannon? If no to the previous question, can I do it with a surface to air missile (assuming the cat is on my roof, for example)? Actually you can kill someones pet under any circumstances in some states (I know mine [WA]). Whenever killing a pet, a person can usually only be held liable (at best) for the 'replacement cost' of the pet (How much it would cost to get a new dog/cat/etc. of the same breed). It is considered a minor property crime. But if the animal is not on the owners property they probably wouldn't even get that. One would actually be more likely to face criminal charges if they killed it by kicking or stabbing a cat than if they shot it (other than charges for just firing a gun if they don't live somewhere that's cool) (as the 'suffering' triggers animal cruelty laws). | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Basically, I can't use a rifle that fires a cartridge rimfire/centerfire/shotgun. If I lived one county over I could. But I *CAN* shoot them with an air rifle. But to get the power needed to kill them reliably you have to go with a PCP air rifle which is an expensive thing... to get the rifle, a good scope, a pony tank and a scuba tank. In the end I just went with $12 Conibear-style body traps. Instead of shoot, shovel, & shut up... it's Snap, shovel, and shut up. | ||
|
URfavHO
United States514 Posts
On September 10 2014 03:15 RCMDVA wrote: I actually had to do some research on this. I had a bad groundhog problem. And neighbor a couple blocks away is a crazy cat lady with 50+ ferals. And I've seen a couple foxes/raccoons during daylight hours when I shouldn't have seen them. Basically, I can't use a rifle that fires a cartridge rimfire/centerfire/shotgun. If I lived one county over I could. But I *CAN* shoot them with an air rifle. But to get the power needed to kill them reliably you have to go with a PCP air rifle which is an expensive thing... to get the rifle, a good scope, a pony tank and a scuba tank. In the end I just went with $12 Conibear-style body traps. Instead of shoot, shovel, & shut up... it's Snap, shovel, and shut up. you probably could have also went with a crossbow. Any 10 year old w mom's credit card can get one on Amazon. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 10 2014 03:21 URfavHO wrote: you probably could have also went with a crossbow. Any 10 year old w mom's credit card can get one on Amazon. Or you could even just sharpen pieces of branches into spears. Anyone with a sharp edge implement can put one together.  j/kActually know someone whose dad spent the day shooting gophers with a crossbow. | ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11447 Posts
Again there are calls for stricter gun control, and then the usual response by many of opposing it because it means dictatorship by government, or the restriction of freedom. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Yet another idealistic thinking by Americans, without any thought of being pragmatic. Dont't focus on thr guns they say, focus on the people. The statement is theoretically true, but in reality without guns, such killings are so much harder to pull off. The best way to lower such incidents is simply to remove guns from the equation. You expect the same killing to be carried out as easily with something like a knife? Sad thing about america is that the country lives by its idealistic thinkings, rather than face reality. By definition they are a democracy, but they are actually controlled by lobbies and powerful corporations. They think they are free, but they can't walk freely in many areas without fear of getting shot. Its a simple concept that they will never understand - a little individual sacrifice for the greater good. Enjoy your freedom guys. Meanwhile I and many in other countries walk around the streets knowing there's almost zero chance of us getting killed by a gun. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On October 02 2015 14:38 DucK- wrote: Yet another mass shooting, and I reacted to the news with "whats new?" Again there are calls for stricter gun control, and then the usual response by many of opposing it because it means dictatorship by government, or the restriction of freedom. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Yet another idealistic thinking by Americans, without any thought of being pragmatic. Dont't focus on thr guns they say, focus on the people. The statement is theoretically true, but in reality without guns, such killings are so much harder to pull off. The best way to lower such incidents is simply to remove guns from the equation. You expect the same killing to be carried out as easily with something like a knife? Sad thing about america is that the country lives by its idealistic thinkings, rather than face reality. By definition they are a democracy, but they are actually controlled by lobbies and powerful corporations. They think they are free, but they can't walk freely in many areas without fear of getting shot. Its a simple concept that they will never understand - a little individual sacrifice for the greater good. Enjoy your freedom guys. Meanwhile I and many in other countries walk around the streets knowing there's almost zero chance of us getting killed by a gun. Thanks for that sentiment. Always good to get input from tiny countries that rely exclusively on foreign imports for food, and to get a lecture from a country run by corporations about how America is run by corporations. | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
On October 02 2015 15:26 ninazerg wrote: Thanks for that sentiment. Always good to get input from tiny countries that rely exclusively on foreign imports for food, and to get a lecture from a country run by corporations about how America is run by corporations. At least in our countries we dont have nightmares when sending our kids to school... | ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11447 Posts
On October 02 2015 15:26 ninazerg wrote: Thanks for that sentiment. Always good to get input from tiny countries that rely exclusively on foreign imports for food, and to get a lecture from a country run by corporations about how America is run by corporations. That's just embracing globalisation instead of fearing it. We get what we don't have from outside, and we give what we have to others that don't (refined oil, purified water, technology etc). If you think a country must be self sufficient to succeed, then I think you're living in the wrong age. America in reality is run by lobbies and corporations that dictate how the government runs. Politicians or parties are backed by these groups for funding in their campaigns etc. So they are given money to champion certain causes that the sponsors want. Its akin to corruption, you receive money and be influenced by those that gave you. Actually its corruption at its finest, so fine that you don't even call it corruption at all. That's why the guns will never be restricted. There's too much vested interest going on. | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
On October 02 2015 15:26 ninazerg wrote: Thanks for that sentiment. Always good to get input from tiny countries that rely exclusively on foreign imports for food, and to get a lecture from a country run by corporations about how America is run by corporations. US is the reason this thread even exists in the first place. That says alot about the situation where there actually is a situation where people need to talk about gun control since school shootings aren't even uncommon anymore. Or other shootings (some guy in movie theater, military base, workplace etc). | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 02 2015 15:56 DucK- wrote: America in reality is run by lobbies and corporations that dictate how the government runs. Politicians or parties are backed by these groups for funding in their campaigns etc. So they are given money to champion certain causes that the sponsors want. Its akin to corruption, you receive money and be influenced by those that gave you. Actually its corruption at its finest, so fine that you don't even call it corruption at all. That's why the guns will never be restricted. There's too much vested interest going on. ...Or maybe it's because a lot of Americans own guns for whatever reason. It's very difficult to ignore a third of the population in a democratic country. The US is very different from Singapore in that regard. Also, guns are restricted in the US. Some current restrictions make less sense than others. | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
| ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11447 Posts
On October 02 2015 16:16 acker wrote: ...Or maybe it's because a lot of Americans own guns for whatever reason. It's very difficult to ignore a third of the population in a democratic country. The US is very different from Singapore in that regard. Also, guns are restricted in the US. Some current restrictions make less sense than others. Guns are restricted, but all these events has shown that the restrictions are not adequate. More needs to be done, whether it is a blanket ban or increased difficulties in obtaining a firearm. But it is going to be be hard, because such moves are 'unpopular' and 'undemocratic'. There won't be much progress in this issue because those that own guns already do not want to be unable to own guns. Those that sell guns do not want their businesses to be negatively affected. Factor in that politicians have their own interest in mind not to oppose the gun lobbies. The issue I have with the kind of democracy US champions, is that there are too much self-interest going on. No one likes to be on the worse ends of new laws. No one likes to lose their rights or freedom. It is perfectly understandable. But sometimes, unpopular things need to be done for the greater good. For example: lowered social spending or austerity. It takes a strong government to be able to implement such measures, one that can distance themselves away from populist groups. In an ideal world, firearms will only be used for self defense or by enforcement officers. Everyone is nice. No one wants to kill people. After all once again: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But reality is a long way off from this, and will probably never be anywhere close to it. Ideals vs reality. Theory vs practice. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On October 02 2015 17:00 DucK- wrote: In an ideal world, firearms will only be used for self defense or by enforcement officers. Everyone is nice. No one wants to kill people. After all once again: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But reality is a long way off from this, and will probably never be anywhere close to it. Ideals vs reality. Theory vs practice. lol in ur "idea world" there wouldnt be the need for self defence or law enforcement. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 02 2015 17:00 DucK- wrote: Guns are restricted, but all these events has shown that the restrictions are not adequate. More needs to be done, whether it is a blanket ban or increased difficulties in obtaining a firearm. But it is going to be be hard, because such moves are 'unpopular' and 'undemocratic'. There won't be much progress in this issue because those that own guns already do not want to be unable to own guns. Those that sell guns do not want their businesses to be negatively affected. Factor in that politicians have their own interest in mind not to oppose the gun lobbies. Such moves are, in fact, undemocratic. I can only assume you want to impose such moves against both the will of the electorate and the Supreme Court. On October 02 2015 17:00 DucK- wrote: The issue I have with the kind of democracy US champions, is that there are too much self-interest going on. No one likes to be on the worse ends of new laws. No one likes to lose their rights or freedom. It is perfectly understandable. But sometimes, unpopular things need to be done for the greater good. For example: lowered social spending or austerity. It takes a strong government to be able to implement such measures, one that can distance themselves away from populist groups. I hope to god you're not a liberal, because get that authoritarian crap away from my political axis. This is raw ammunition for gun owners who claim that the second amendment exists to prevent these exact situations. On October 02 2015 17:00 DucK- wrote: In an ideal world, firearms will only be used for self defense or by enforcement officers. Everyone is nice. No one wants to kill people. After all once again: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But reality is a long way off from this, and will probably never be anywhere close to it. Ideals vs reality. Theory vs practice. Your practical world sounds like a dictatorship to me. I don't think that sounds like a very practical or ideal world, but maybe that's just me. | ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11447 Posts
Being practical means acknowledging that you can't have everything in this world. In this case, it is firearms rights vs greater safety or reduction of such massacres. I'd choose the latter over the former any time, any day, even if it means having the government impose on me such a ruling. On October 02 2015 17:08 ahswtini wrote: lol in ur "idea world" there wouldnt be the need for self defence or law enforcement. That is true :D | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10823 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
It's not about freedom, it's about culture. Culture dictates which freedoms people care about, and which laws (restrictions of freedom) they protest. This fear that the government will do some 1984 shit and subdue the population by force is, in the west, a uniquely American fantasy. I'm not even sure I can say it's inappropriate though. Your country is not a democracy. If I lived in the US I would have no faith in peaceful protest as a means of change. It's all about the money. Again, not going to say it's inappropriate. That's your niche on the world stage; it works, and if you need an armed population to feel like you can keep yourselves from subjugation from the beneficiaries of the uneven distribution of wealth/power then that's how it is. I think the choice America is struggling with is whether to stick with this niche - corporate domination, inequality, extreme free market - or move to a more balanced European model. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
