Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 05-06-2013, 09:36 PM
Miisa's Avatar
Miisa Miisa is offline
NPC
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hellmouth
Posts: VCDLII
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
How so? Self-defense is a pretty fundamental right--it's quite arguable the contrary is unnatural. Is it specifically the gun that's at issue for you?
No, any tool made, kept and used specifically to kill or maim another human is the problem. But the bigger problem is the social atmosphere that nurtures the idea that other people are out to hurt you. The media is certainly not helping the situation.

Quote:
It's not just attitudes, it's the fact that it's not difficult at all for violent criminals to access them. That's why so many feel the need to be prepared to defend themselves against lethal weaponry.
The fact that so many people have a gun makes it necessary for criminals to also have them, causing and worsening the tail spin. It wasn't that many decades ago that street gangs routinely fought using fists or knives. An arms race has changed that, and the situation is very similar when it comes to run-of-the-mill criminals vs. victims. Criminals are not going anywhere, they merely adapt to their environment. Guns are relatively rarely used in crimes in my country, despite an alarming proliferation of them, as gun permits are never issued for defence against humans and there is no permissible carry. There is a confidence that there will be no people playing hero to protect mere things, therefore no need to make the crime more severely punishable and the likelihood of being caught grater by committing a crime when armed. A would-be victim may arm himself to hope to avoid becoming a victim, but in reality the first step for criminals when victims are likely armed is to arm themselves, the next is to shoot first and rob a corpse.

Quote:
Also, guns provide weaker, less tactically viable people with a means to defend themselves that other weapons don't.
Again, this may make the individual feel safer in the short run, but is ultimately making everyone, also him, less safe in the long run due to the arms race and the air of fearmongering. The US is (and has been for some time now) heading down a path where justice and maintaining a peaceful society is not centralized any more, but in the hands of individuals. There is a long history of alarming distrust in police and military compared to other Western cultures (possibly originally rooted in the glorification of a rebellion that the country was founded on and then ballooned and warped from there), and is at least seemingly worse in the past few years, though that could just be due to vocal fringe elements.
__________________
:roadrun:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-06-2013), ceptimus (05-07-2013), Crumb (05-06-2013), Kael (05-07-2013), livius drusus (05-06-2013), Pan Narrans (05-07-2013), Qingdai (05-07-2013), Saxatilis (06-17-2014), Stephen Maturin (05-06-2013), Stormlight (05-07-2013), The Man (05-06-2013), Watser? (05-06-2013)
  #252  
Old 05-06-2013, 11:59 PM
maddog maddog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: MMMXXXIII
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Does anybody besides me think that this disucssion, while interesting, is a rather extended derail from the "morons with guns thrad"? Shouldn't this go into its own "morons in gun thrads" thrad? IOW, I think I am asking for a (very rare) split.

#2935
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (05-07-2013), Dingfod (05-07-2013), Nullifidian (05-07-2013)
  #253  
Old 05-07-2013, 01:16 AM
SkepticX's Avatar
SkepticX SkepticX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: CCCVI
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
How so? Self-defense is a pretty fundamental right--it's quite arguable the contrary is unnatural. Is it specifically the gun that's at issue for you?
No, any tool made, kept and used specifically to kill or maim another human is the problem. But the bigger problem is the social atmosphere that nurtures the idea that other people are out to hurt you. The media is certainly not helping the situation.
I agree with that to a large extent. The media certainly makes a lot of people feel a lot less safe than they really are (statistically speaking), and we're getting significantly safer here in the US rather than less safe, which is contrary to many seem to think. But obviously there are many cases of people who are in fact out to prey on others and do so. That's what violent crime is, and the numbers demonstrate this fact beyond any remotely reasonable doubt (i.e. we're safer than we tend to think, but violent crime certainly does exist, and at an unacceptable level). Accepting both sides of that equation rather than denying either is an indication of whether one is reasonable (or even rational in many cases) about guns and violence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
It's not just attitudes, it's the fact that it's not difficult at all for violent criminals to access them. That's why so many feel the need to be prepared to defend themselves against lethal weaponry.
The fact that so many people have a gun makes it necessary for criminals to also have them, causing and worsening the tail spin. It wasn't that many decades ago that street gangs routinely fought using fists or knives. An arms race has changed that, and the situation is very similar when it comes to run-of-the-mill criminals vs. victims. Criminals are not going anywhere, they merely adapt to their environment.
The arms race has gone on throughout history. It's pretty naive, quite frankly, to presume that if the good guys didn't get guns the bad guys therefore wouldn't feel the need either. That's plainly backwards on its face. Those who aren't interested in preying on their fellow man have no need to acquire a tactical advantage over him either. On the other hand those who do want to prey on their fellow man do need a tactical advantage over him or it won't work. If "predators" were okay with only accepting that which their fellow man were willing to share, it would be accepting charity rather than theft. The need the good guys feel to arm themselves is about defending themselves from the bad guys once they're armed. This is one of the most consistent patterns in human history.

At any rate, you're onto something most anti-gun types desperately try not to recognize--this arms race. I agree that as long as a society can keep guns at bay it's clearly desirable. The problem is when the arms race in such a society turns and goes the way it always has throughout history, when predators (aggressors) can prey on their victims without enough imposed risk to provide a very effective disincentive.

Predators drive the arms race because violent criminals are clearly less concerned about being good or even lawful neighbors. Most of us want to get along with each other and abide by the Social Contract that we've developed as a social species (like any other social species, only we're far more sophisticated about it), but violent criminals prey on their fellows. They're clearly not inhibited sufficiently by codified law, much less the so-called Social Contract. So until we develop socially to the point that we remove and/or otherwise counter the incentive predators have to prey on their fellows, the arms race is going to happen, and as long as that's the case the balance of power issue between predator and prey is in effect and it's a matter of time before it's too easy and advantageous for criminals to get and use guns for any legal bans to be functional. At that point if the society refuses to adapt it's forcing it's citizens to live with a serious threat while at the same refusing them the best means to protect themselves, and law enforcement (public safety) will never be able to protect individual citizens from predators very effectively at all--they protect society overall by pursuing predators after they've claimed prey. As long as the "prey" is property that's fine, but when it's human victims we're talking about violence and threats to life and/or limb, and it's not okay to presume everyone should be okay taking their chances when those chances change significantly for the worse.

Most of us (even in the US) are generally safe in terms of being statistically unlikely to become victims of violent crime on any given day or even in any given year, but when the stakes are high if it happens and the risk is low for personal injury (and they are, unless you're suicidal, or perhaps if you're rather prone toward pointless risky behavior), there's good reason to be armed if you're so inclined (particularly if you're trained) and little reason not to. At any rate it's quite understandable that many people choose to arm themselves in self-defense. I agree many do so because they feel like they're at much higher risk than they really are, but that's a different matter than whether it's understandable that they choose to arm themselves. In my experience the anti-gun mindset is usually driven largely by a gross misunderstanding regarding where the risk regarding guns really rests and how much risk there really is elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Guns are relatively rarely used in crimes in my country, despite an alarming proliferation of them, as gun permits are never issued for defence against humans and there is no permissible carry. There is a confidence that there will be no people playing hero to protect mere things, therefore no need to make the crime more severely punishable and the likelihood of being caught grater by committing a crime when armed.
So there's an alarming proliferation of guns in the UK, yet there is a criminal confidence that there will be no "heroes" trying to protect mere property, therefore no need to use guns making the crime more severe ... so why is there an alarming proliferation of guns, and how can criminals feel as you say if there is? I agree protecting property is an invalid use of lethal weapons, by the way, but if your home is invaded while you're in it the predator has already spent any benefit of doubt, so the predator will have to create that benefit in order for you to reasonably give it (i.e. he has to bug the fuck out and/or cease and desist any aggressive behavior). And it's important to understand that the predator is the one who is entirely responsible for imposing the situation on both the intended prey and himself--he's forced the IP into a situation in which the IP is justifiably likely to feel pressed to choose between himself/his family and the predator, and that's not just a personal choice, because someone who preys on his fellow man is a clear threat to others as well. No man is an island, as the kids say.

From what I understand the UK is seeing this shift in the arms race, unfortunately. Also unfortunate is the that the culture has by and large developed a naive view of violence and a reactionary anti-weapon/anti-serious self-defense mindset. As a result it's most likely that the predators will at some point enjoy fairly safe and free predation. Hopefully that can be staved off somehow, but I seriously doubt we're going to solve the underlying problems and turn it all around before it's gone bad even if they can for the time being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
A would-be victim may arm himself to hope to avoid becoming a victim, but in reality the first step for criminals when victims are likely armed is to arm themselves, the next is to shoot first and rob a corpse.
Well, that's about tactics, and frankly it's not as simple as imagining a universal scenario where the weapons only serve the aggressors well. If you want to understand violence and tactics you've got to study them, not just presume the aggressor will always get the drop on his intended prey and be well prepared for resistance and decide it's worth the risk and effort to overcome that resistance rather than to move on and later seek easier prey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
Also, guns provide weaker, less tactically viable people with a means to defend themselves that other weapons don't.
Again, this may make the individual feel safer in the short run, but is ultimately making everyone, also him, less safe in the long run due to the arms race and the air of fearmongering.
That presumes the arms race isn't beyond the threshold I spoke of--when predatory violent criminals can too easily access and use guns with too little disincentive to use them. When you get to that point adding guns to the prey side of the equation just makes more formidable, less desirable prey. It really doesn't require more than a very basic understanding of violence and predatory (criminal) behavior to understand that, when predators can prey on their victims too easily and the authorities can't protect them, those targeted as prey need to be allowed to more effectively defend themselves (mainly those who are less able to do so already).

While we're generally much more safe than we tend to think here in the US, that's not true for everyone, and again, we're certainly beyond the point at which the benefits outweigh the risks (exceptions being suicidal and pointless risk-taking types ... and I guess I should also add those who are extraordinarily careless). That's not to say it's for everyone by any means. If my wife and I had kids I might very well feel differently as far as the way guns should be kept in my own house (if any). That changes the potential consequences, dramatically. I'd definitely have to look into the matter before making any decisions other than to play it safe (i.e. lock them up in the safe). Also those who are simply disinclined (many of whom, I strongly suspect, simply haven't encountered or realistically considered real violence).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
The US is (and has been for some time now) heading down a path where justice and maintaining a peaceful society is not centralized any more, but in the hands of individuals.
If so, it's working. We're in fact getting less violent. Is that the case in the UK as well? or is it maybe just the case that the UK is staying relatively less violent and not shifting significantly one way or the other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
There is a long history of alarming distrust in police and military compared to other Western cultures (possibly originally rooted in the glorification of a rebellion that the country was founded on and then ballooned and warped from there), and is at least seemingly worse in the past few years, though that could just be due to vocal fringe elements.
Well, there's a very justified distrust of the police among minority groups who are less than ideally served by them (to put it rather mildly in many cases), but much less so among more conservative white types. Economic status also has a lot to do with it--it's certainly not just about race, though that seems to be the primary factor.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 05-07-2013, 01:19 AM
SkepticX's Avatar
SkepticX SkepticX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: CCCVI
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddog View Post
Does anybody besides me think that this disucssion, while interesting, is a rather extended derail from the "morons with guns thrad"? Shouldn't this go into its own "morons in gun thrads" thrad? IOW, I think I am asking for a (very rare) split.

#2935
Sounds like a good idea to me too. Could be that resentment over interrupting the fun has something to do with the negative reactions.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 05-07-2013, 02:14 AM
Adam's Avatar
Adam Adam is offline
Vice Cobra Assistant Commander
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: XMVDCCXLIX
Images: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddog View Post
Does anybody besides me think that this disucssion, while interesting, is a rather extended derail from the "morons with guns thrad"? Shouldn't this go into its own "morons in gun thrads" thrad? IOW, I think I am asking for a (very rare) split.

#2935
Sounds like a good idea to me too. Could be that resentment over interrupting the fun has something to do with the negative reactions.
No, I'm pretty sure that the negative reactions are almost entirely due to your repeated proclamations that people who fail to see the relevance of your "assume that we know the gun is unloaded" hypotheticals to the real world are irrational.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
ARMORED HOT DOG
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (05-07-2013), chunksmediocrites (05-15-2013), Kael (05-07-2013), Nullifidian (05-07-2013), The Man (05-07-2013)
  #256  
Old 05-07-2013, 02:46 AM
SkepticX's Avatar
SkepticX SkepticX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: CCCVI
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddog View Post
Does anybody besides me think that this disucssion, while interesting, is a rather extended derail from the "morons with guns thrad"? Shouldn't this go into its own "morons in gun thrads" thrad? IOW, I think I am asking for a (very rare) split.
Sounds like a good idea to me too. Could be that resentment over interrupting the fun has something to do with the negative reactions.
No, I'm pretty sure that the negative reactions are almost entirely due to your repeated proclamations that people who fail to see the relevance of your "assume that we know the gun is unloaded" hypotheticals to the real world are irrational.
No you're not. That just works into what you want to think.

My point was simple, virtually everyone who "responded" changed the context and/or ignored premises and then got all histrionic when I explained the fact (they had no real response/refutation so they got angry and threw varying degrees of tantrums). Quite understandably they, and apparently you, would much rather feel as if they're being entirely rational. It's an all too familiar pattern to an iconoclast and a skeptic.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 05-07-2013, 02:50 AM
Adam's Avatar
Adam Adam is offline
Vice Cobra Assistant Commander
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: XMVDCCXLIX
Images: 29
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddog View Post
Does anybody besides me think that this disucssion, while interesting, is a rather extended derail from the "morons with guns thrad"? Shouldn't this go into its own "morons in gun thrads" thrad? IOW, I think I am asking for a (very rare) split.
Sounds like a good idea to me too. Could be that resentment over interrupting the fun has something to do with the negative reactions.
No, I'm pretty sure that the negative reactions are almost entirely due to your repeated proclamations that people who fail to see the relevance of your "assume that we know the gun is unloaded" hypotheticals to the real world are irrational.
No you're not. That just works into what you want to think.

My point was simple, virtually everyone who "responded" changed the context and/or ignored premises and then got all histrionic when I explained the fact (they had no real response/refutation so they got angry and threw varying degrees of tantrums).
Yes, despite your apparent privileged insight into my mental state, I am, indeed, pretty sure of the thing I said I was pretty sure of. One might even say that I'm firmly convinced.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
ARMORED HOT DOG
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-15-2013), Kael (05-07-2013), Nullifidian (05-07-2013), Pan Narrans (05-07-2013), The Man (05-07-2013)
  #258  
Old 05-07-2013, 02:55 AM
SkepticX's Avatar
SkepticX SkepticX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: CCCVI
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Yes, despite your apparent privileged insight into my mental state, I am, indeed, pretty sure of the thing I said I was pretty sure of. One might even say that I'm firmly convinced.
Not likely.

I doubt you're really that oblivious or that you really read that poorly.

But I suppose I could be wrong. I do tend to be a bit generous with the benefit of the doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 05-07-2013, 03:13 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XXCDXXX
Images: 2
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

:lol:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (05-07-2013), Crumb (05-07-2013), Nullifidian (05-07-2013)
  #260  
Old 05-07-2013, 04:06 AM
Qingdai's Avatar
Qingdai Qingdai is offline
Dogehlaugher -Scrutari
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest
Gender: Female
Posts: XVDLXVII
Images: 165
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

I'm amused that the UK is being confused with Finland.
That is all, you know a country that glorified, but didn't conflate freedoms with the Moltov cocktail.
__________________
Ishmaeline of Domesticity drinker of smurf tears
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-15-2013), Miisa (05-07-2013), Nullifidian (05-07-2013), The Man (10-06-2015)
  #261  
Old 05-07-2013, 07:51 AM
Miisa's Avatar
Miisa Miisa is offline
NPC
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hellmouth
Posts: VCDLII
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
But obviously there are many cases of people who are in fact out to prey on others and do so. That's what violent crime is, and the numbers demonstrate this fact beyond any remotely reasonable doubt (i.e. we're safer than we tend to think, but violent crime certainly does exist, and at an unacceptable level).
But is the answer to have people arming themselves order to make them feel more safe, when, in reality, it turns out they are more likely to be injured by their own weapon than have it prevent injury to them?

And are there really that many psychopaths out there who enjoy hurting people and don't do crimes for gain? If so, that should be a major focus of preventative action now, so that there would be fewer of them 25 years don the line.

Quote:
The arms race has gone on throughout history. It's pretty naive, quite frankly, to presume that if the good guys didn't get guns the bad guys therefore wouldn't feel the need either. That's plainly backwards on its face. Those who aren't interested in preying on their fellow man have no need to acquire a tactical advantage over him either. On the other hand those who do want to prey on their fellow man do need a tactical advantage over him or it won't work. If "predators" were okay with only accepting that which their fellow man were willing to share, it would be accepting charity rather than theft. The need the good guys feel to arm themselves is about defending themselves from the bad guys once they're armed. This is one of the most consistent patterns in human history.

At any rate, you're onto something most anti-gun types desperately try not to recognize--this arms race. I agree that as long as a society can keep guns at bay it's clearly desirable. The problem is when the arms race in such a society turns and goes the way it always has throughout history, when predators (aggressors) can prey on their victims without enough imposed risk to provide a very effective disincentive.
And I think it is amazing naive to think that crime will somehow stop happening because of gun proliferation amongst the population, as if reaching some sort of level of mutual assured destruction, if that could even be achieved. My point is not that crimes will not happen if there are no guns, merely that lethal crimes are rarer. There will be robberies, there will be drunken fights, there will be feuding neighbours. But it will not be as easy to kill someone, be it in anger, fear or by accident, just because the gun was right there.

Quote:
In my experience the anti-gun mindset is usually driven largely by a gross misunderstanding regarding where the risk regarding guns really rests and how much risk there really is elsewhere.
Oh, you are preaching to the minister's wife here. Half my life I have been surrounded by guns, married to someone who is an active shooter and a former professional. I agree that guns are NOT the problem. The attitudes that allow guns to be seen as "just a tool" are fine in a frontier society where snakes and bears and dragons lurk behind every bush, but when they are carried in plain view to intimidate fellow people because they are acceptable weapons to use against humans you are in a frightening place. That is the point a firearm goes from a "tool" to a "weapon".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
So there's an alarming proliferation of guns in the UK, yet there is a criminal confidence that there will be no "heroes" trying to protect mere property, therefore no need to use guns making the crime more severe ... so why is there an alarming proliferation of guns, and how can criminals feel as you say if there is? I agree protecting property is an invalid use of lethal weapons, by the way, but if your home is invaded while you're in it the predator has already spent any benefit of doubt, so the predator will have to create that benefit in order for you to reasonably give it (i.e. he has to bug the fuck out and/or cease and desist any aggressive behavior). And it's important to understand that the predator is the one who is entirely responsible for imposing the situation on both the intended prey and himself--he's forced the IP into a situation in which the IP is justifiably likely to feel pressed to choose between himself/his family and the predator, and that's not just a personal choice, because someone who preys on his fellow man is a clear threat to others as well. No man is an island, as the kids say.

From what I understand the UK is seeing this shift in the arms race, unfortunately. Also unfortunate is the that the culture has by and large developed a naive view of violence and a reactionary anti-weapon/anti-serious self-defense mindset. As a result it's most likely that the predators will at some point enjoy fairly safe and free predation. Hopefully that can be staved off somehow, but I seriously doubt we're going to solve the underlying problems and turn it all around before it's gone bad even if they can for the time being.
Um, I can't vouch for the UK, but I understand it has a rather violent criminal subculture yet surprisingly few murders. Also, the violence doesn't seem to bleed over onto the general population as much as you might expect. I am in Finland, where there are statistically a LOT of guns, but they are seen carried by hunters (in the forest) or sports shooters (at the range), never in public, I had never even seen a gun until I was in my 20's. Any infringement, such as even displaying your firearm in an inappropriate place or storing them outside of a safe, will lead to at least fines and a loss of licences, and this is actually enforced, not just a lip service law. The gun culture in society is completely the opposite here to the frontier mentality, despite the numbers of guns and the proximity of wildlife. I believe Canada has a similar situation.
Laws have been tightened further due to unfortunate isolated incidents such as school shootings, but I think all reasonable people agree that having school personnel armed and thus risking turning any given classroom into a range is not the way to prevent such relatively rare occurrences.


Quote:
That presumes the arms race isn't beyond the threshold I spoke of--when predatory violent criminals can too easily access and use guns with too little disincentive to use them. When you get to that point adding guns to the prey side of the equation just makes more formidable, less desirable prey. It really doesn't require more than a very basic understanding of violence and predatory (criminal) behavior to understand that, when predators can prey on their victims too easily and the authorities can't protect them, those targeted as prey need to be allowed to more effectively defend themselves (mainly those who are less able to do so already).
This is precisely the corner you are in, painted there actively (and I think maybe intentionally) by certain interest groups.
And you know that guy desperate for a fix is going to rob someone to pay his dealer, is it really socially acceptable to just keep passing the victim buck to more vulnerable members of society? Is that really the broader plan, that everyone will need to be armed or assuredly be robbed? I mean, really, the lawless Wild West? I know there are people who haven't fallen for the fearmongers and gun salesmen, who know that keeping the guy from robbing is better. Let him get help, or better yet, intervene ten years ago when he was still just a member of a risk group.

Oh yeah, that would be infringing on individuals and their right to choose. Must keep up the illusion of free will. And the rights of the individual must trump those of the society and the people in general, or so it seems?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
The US is (and has been for some time now) heading down a path where justice and maintaining a peaceful society is not centralized any more, but in the hands of individuals.
If so, it's working. We're in fact getting less violent. Is that the case in the UK as well? or is it maybe just the case that the UK is staying relatively less violent and not shifting significantly one way or the other?
Again, it's Finland, can't vouch for the UK, except to say that it turns out Britons trust the police, only the NHS was trusted more in a recent survey.

Outsourcing ones' security to the government is a critical feature of all societies as they develop. An army rather than militia, police and law proceeding rather than witch hunts and lynchings, fines and incarceration rather than an eye for an eye.


As for the thread title, I always read it as "Mormons with guns". Which would be actually interesting.
__________________
:roadrun:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stormlight (05-07-2013), The Man (10-06-2015), Watser? (05-07-2013), Ymir's blood (05-14-2013)
  #262  
Old 05-07-2013, 07:57 AM
Miisa's Avatar
Miisa Miisa is offline
NPC
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hellmouth
Posts: VCDLII
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Here you go, Mormons with guns:

Quote:
KSL.com was criticised by the Mayor's office for running classified adverts which allow individuals to buy and sell handguns and other firearms without proper background checks and no questions asked.

The site is owned by Deseret Media, the for-profit arm of the Church of the Latter Day Saints
__________________
:roadrun:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-15-2013), livius drusus (05-14-2013), Nullifidian (05-07-2013), Stormlight (05-07-2013), The Man (10-06-2015), Ymir's blood (05-14-2013)
  #263  
Old 05-07-2013, 09:45 AM
Miisa's Avatar
Miisa Miisa is offline
NPC
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hellmouth
Posts: VCDLII
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qingdai View Post
I'm amused that the UK is being confused with Finland.
That is all, you know a country that glorified, but didn't conflate freedoms with the Moltov cocktail.
I will fight for my constitutional and historical birthright to throw Molotov cocktails at burglars, muggers, vicious dogs, misbehaving children, and random Russians.
__________________
:roadrun:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-07-2013), chunksmediocrites (05-15-2013), Nullifidian (05-07-2013), Pan Narrans (05-07-2013), Qingdai (05-07-2013), The Man (10-06-2015), Watser? (05-08-2013), Ymir's blood (05-14-2013)
  #264  
Old 05-07-2013, 12:07 PM
Dingfod's Avatar
Dingfod Dingfod is offline
A fellow sophisticate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cowtown, Kansas
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 21
Images: 92
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Here you go, Mormons with guns:

Quote:
KSL.com was criticised by the Mayor's office for running classified adverts which allow individuals to buy and sell handguns and other firearms without proper background checks and no questions asked.

The site is owned by Deseret Media, the for-profit arm of the Church of the Latter Day Saints
It's the same here in Tulsa, both in the sporting goods and the bargain ads sections of the classifieds. Why not, it's legal?
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 05-07-2013, 03:05 PM
SkepticX's Avatar
SkepticX SkepticX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: CCCVI
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
But obviously there are many cases of people who are in fact out to prey on others and do so. That's what violent crime is, and the numbers demonstrate this fact beyond any remotely reasonable doubt (i.e. we're safer than we tend to think, but violent crime certainly does exist, and at an unacceptable level).
But is the answer to have people arming themselves order to make them feel more safe, when, in reality, it turns out they are more likely to be injured by their own weapon than have it prevent injury to them?
Whether or not that's actually true is highly individualized, and the research the idea is based upon is highly result-oriented. Protection or Peril: An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home by Arthur Kellermann, published in NEJM back in the '80s was the first big study to pose this claim ("big" in terms of perceived stature). It's based solely on deaths, as if non-kills don't count as self-defense, and as if suicides are pertinent to a tactical issue and a concern for all who would consider getting a gun. That's just not reality at all, and it accounts for well over 90% of the study's numbers. So it ignored any defensive gun use (DGU) that didn't result in death (a very high percentage unless you don't count presenting a firearm and getting the perpetrator to bug out post haste, which is the best scenario, or if you only count instances in which the gun is fired), and suicides accounted for the vast majority of it's mortality data. So well over 90% of the numbers are irrelevant to the large majority who might be considering a gun for self-defense.

The study was set up to produce the result it got, a result which has been dubbed the "43 Times Fallacy" by skeptics because the "finding" is that keeping a gun in your home is 43 times more likely to result in the death of you or a loved one (including friends/neighbors, and almost entirely meaning suicidal people) than it is to be used to kill a home invader (remember, scaring one away or injuring one without killing him doesn't count).

In short, it's a myth that keeping a gun in your home is more dangerous to you than to a "hot" home invader ("hot" home invasion meaning it happens when people are there in the home, which is the real issue). Burglaries when no one is present aren't going to result in a violence.

Unfortunately if you Google "43 Times Fallacy" you're going to get almost all pro-gun apologetics, but some of them are pretty critical, many others ... not so much. You have to go by the merits of the arguments rather than what you want to see (which isn't about you from what I can tell, but is pretty clearly about most participating in this thread).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
And are there really that many psychopaths out there who enjoy hurting people and don't do crimes for gain? If so, that should be a major focus of preventative action now, so that there would be fewer of them 25 years don the line.
I agree. When did psychopaths come into play here anyway? In any case, if the violent crime statistics are significantly lower 25 years down the line it will then be less advantageous to own a gun for self-defense, but the risk still won't be anywhere near the dramatically inflated numbers put out by research that counts only deaths and/or includes especially suicides as part of a self-defense cost-benefit/risk-reward analysis.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
The arms race has gone on throughout history. It's pretty naive, quite frankly, to presume that if the good guys didn't get guns the bad guys therefore wouldn't feel the need either. That's plainly backwards on its face. Those who aren't interested in preying on their fellow man have no need to acquire a tactical advantage over him either. On the other hand those who do want to prey on their fellow man do need a tactical advantage over him or it won't work. If "predators" were okay with only accepting that which their fellow man were willing to share, it would be accepting charity rather than theft. The need the good guys feel to arm themselves is about defending themselves from the bad guys once they're armed. This is one of the most consistent patterns in human history.

At any rate, you're onto something most anti-gun types desperately try not to recognize--this arms race. I agree that as long as a society can keep guns at bay it's clearly desirable. The problem is when the arms race in such a society turns and goes the way it always has throughout history, when predators (aggressors) can prey on their victims without enough imposed risk to provide a very effective disincentive.
And I think it is amazing naive to think that crime will somehow stop happening because of gun proliferation amongst the population ...
I do too. The idea makes no sense at all, unless you're talking about a fully militarized society, but even then you're going to have crime, just as there's crime in the military. No one's made this argument. Some argue that widespread gun ownership and carrying (packing heat, as the kids say) tends to make a society significantly less violent, but I'm not making that argument myself. I don't think it's an argument about reality, so in some versions of the theory it would work great, but just like political theory it's all well and good until people get involved. Then the model world of the theory just gets trampled under foot.

But yeah, it's an absolutely absurd idea that guns will fix society's problems. Guns are about self-defense in the mean time--choosing a weapon to manage a violent assailant rather than relying on the remedy of the social ails that produce the assailants. When someone is actually in the process of trying to harm or kill you, hoping that society gets past the whole violence thing before you're seriously hurt or killed isn't a terribly practical approach.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
... as if reaching some sort of level of mutual assured destruction, if that could even be achieved.
Mutually assured destruction isn't the goal of self-defense. For some more naive and hostile types it may be the destruction of the violent criminal(s) (presumably) unfortunate enough to encounter them, but the rational posture is merely what self-defense implies. Once the violence has been ceased or prevented, you're done (which should generally include no longer being in the proximity of the violent criminal--i.e. if you can just bug out and escape, that's ideal, and that's the second most important ability in terms of tactical capacity behind area awareness).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
My point is not that crimes will not happen if there are no guns, merely that lethal crimes are rarer. There will be robberies, there will be drunken fights, there will be feuding neighbours. But it will not be as easy to kill someone, be it in anger, fear or by accident, just because the gun was right there.
Yeah, I understood that, and that's what my response addresses. I never suggested you argued anything but that the proliferation of weapons creates an arms race, and that criminals won't need to engage in this arms race if others don't either. My response stands.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
In my experience the anti-gun mindset is usually driven largely by a gross misunderstanding regarding where the risk regarding guns really rests and how much risk there really is elsewhere.
Oh, you are preaching to the minister's wife here. Half my life I have been surrounded by guns, married to someone who is an active shooter and a former professional. I agree that guns are NOT the problem. The attitudes that allow guns to be seen as "just a tool" are fine in a frontier society where snakes and bears and dragons lurk behind every bush, but when they are carried in plain view to intimidate fellow people because they are acceptable weapons to use against humans you are in a frightening place. That is the point a firearm goes from a "tool" to a "weapon".
I don't think you have to be in a frightening place though. A defensive weapon is a form of emergency equipment--a violence extinguisher. Just as with any other emergency equipment you keep it "just in case" and hope you never need it, and just like other emergency equipment you don't wring your hands over the possibility of needing it all the time. It's there and (ideally) you have a basic, functional idea of what to do with it, so in the unlikely event it's needed, you're as prepared as you can reasonably expect to be. With guns you can train to be more prepared, which is a good idea, but how far one takes that is a very individual thing. But as I expect you know given your experience, they're not the tremendously difficult to wield weapons many seem to like to think they are--they're very simple machines--not difficult to use at all (in principle or in practice--though when the psychology of actual violence comes into play that can change things dramatically in very individualized ways of course, but likely not only in the ways many will choose to presume).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
So there's an alarming proliferation of guns in the UK, yet there is a criminal confidence that there will be no "heroes" trying to protect mere property, therefore no need to use guns making the crime more severe ... so why is there an alarming proliferation of guns, and how can criminals feel as you say if there is? I agree protecting property is an invalid use of lethal weapons, by the way, but if your home is invaded while you're in it the predator has already spent any benefit of doubt, so the predator will have to create that benefit in order for you to reasonably give it (i.e. he has to bug the fuck out and/or cease and desist any aggressive behavior). And it's important to understand that the predator is the one who is entirely responsible for imposing the situation on both the intended prey and himself--he's forced the IP into a situation in which the IP is justifiably likely to feel pressed to choose between himself/his family and the predator, and that's not just a personal choice, because someone who preys on his fellow man is a clear threat to others as well. No man is an island, as the kids say.

From what I understand the UK is seeing this shift in the arms race, unfortunately. Also unfortunate is the that the culture has by and large developed a naive view of violence and a reactionary anti-weapon/anti-serious self-defense mindset. As a result it's most likely that the predators will at some point enjoy fairly safe and free predation. Hopefully that can be staved off somehow, but I seriously doubt we're going to solve the underlying problems and turn it all around before it's gone bad even if they can for the time being.
Um, I can't vouch for the UK ...
My bad. I must have gotten something you posted mixed up with some UK types (or rather something you didn't post).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
... but I understand it has a rather violent criminal subculture yet surprisingly few murders. Also, the violence doesn't seem to bleed over onto the general population as much as you might expect. I am in Finland, where there are statistically a LOT of guns, but they are seen carried by hunters (in the forest) or sports shooters (at the range), never in public, I had never even seen a gun until I was in my 20's. Any infringement, such as even displaying your firearm in an inappropriate place or storing them outside of a safe, will lead to at least fines and a loss of licences, and this is actually enforced, not just a lip service law. The gun culture in society is completely the opposite here to the frontier mentality, despite the numbers of guns and the proximity of wildlife. I believe Canada has a similar situation.
Laws have been tightened further due to unfortunate isolated incidents such as school shootings, but I think all reasonable people agree that having school personnel armed and thus risking turning any given classroom into a range is not the way to prevent such relatively rare occurrences.
Good stuff. Sounds similar to most of the US, actually, though I gather you don't have a prevalent fear of violent crime in spite of relatively non-violent society like we do. I guess your media is overall a hell of a lot more responsible and information rather than purely market driven. I'd also guess your society values the quality of information they consume in their media a lot more than pure entertainment, which is another significant difference. If I could take my friends with me I'd head for Scandinavia in a heartbeat, and I expect I'd have to do so gunless. That would be fine by me. I've given some thought to that, actually. The gun issue is something I've noted, but it's never been an issue in that consideration. The main problem is that I couldn't really get all of my friends and family to come along--and money of course. I think most of us have skills that would earn us the green light to immigrate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticX View Post
That presumes the arms race isn't beyond the threshold I spoke of--when predatory violent criminals can too easily access and use guns with too little disincentive to use them. When you get to that point adding guns to the prey side of the equation just makes more formidable, less desirable prey. It really doesn't require more than a very basic understanding of violence and predatory (criminal) behavior to understand that, when predators can prey on their victims too easily and the authorities can't protect them, those targeted as prey need to be allowed to more effectively defend themselves (mainly those who are less able to do so already).
This is precisely the corner you are in, painted there actively (and I think maybe intentionally) by certain interest groups.
I agree at least to a large extent. I think it's pretty much inevitable, but the NRA (et al) and the gun industry (branches of the same beastie) have just been dumping rocket fuel on the fire by the metric tonne.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
And you know that guy desperate for a fix is going to rob someone to pay his dealer, is it really socially acceptable to just keep passing the victim buck to more vulnerable members of society? Is that really the broader plan, that everyone will need to be armed or assuredly be robbed? I mean, really, the lawless Wild West?
It's nowhere near as violent here at that seems to suggest, and no one is arguing that guns are the way to fix society's ails--they're about self-defense (and hunting and target shooting and such, but I'm not concerned with sport shooting here). Maybe you could rephrase that in a more clinical way? I'm not really sure what you're on about there. The basic idea is obvious of course, but there are a lot of unspoken premises in play, and it seems they're bringing you to argue about a society that doesn't exist here. We likely don't disagree here, but I can't tell--is your point perhaps a bit overstated there?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
I know there are people who haven't fallen for the fearmongers and gun salesmen, who know that keeping the guy from robbing is better. Let him get help, or better yet, intervene ten years ago when he was still just a member of a risk group.
I'm confident the large majority of gun owners would agree that preventing violent crime from happening in the first place is far better than having to use violence in self-defense. Hell, even the NRA would. But I'd also argue, with few reservations, that most gun owners would also agree that gun ownership aren't a social program or a means of addressing the underlying issues, but rather in the context of self-defense, that's the limit of their effects--very individual and purely defensive (i.e. defense against violence).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
Outsourcing ones' security to the government is a critical feature of all societies as they develop. An army rather than militia, police and law proceeding rather than witch hunts and lynchings, fines and incarceration rather than an eye for an eye.
It's a nice ideal, and most of us do just fine with that, but the police aren't there to protect individuals, they come by after the fact and try to prevent further crimes. That's great for society overall, but not for those who are, in fact victimized.

The fact is significant violent crime happens here. Most of us are at relatively low risk and area awareness and mobility can make it a lot less likely we'll be victimized (as individuals of course), but still the risk does in fact exist, we can't be vigilant all the time, we all make mistakes even when we're generally conscientious, and we all have to roll the dice we have (which we can manipulate to a significant degree, well pre-violence). More importantly in terms of this discussion though, the risk to individuals and society overall inherently imposed by gun ownership is very low.

The real issue is violent crime (and arguably suicide). Stupidity and carelessness and risky behavior all certainly play a role as well of course, but it's not reasonable to presume that we all take on the same degree of risk regarding much of anything as do the violent, the suicidal, the careless and the stupid. Those are valid issues for policy, but not a reasonable part of a personal assessment ... well, of most personal assessments anyway. If you're any or some of those things, or even all of them somehow, then you need to include that thing/those things in your own assessment. None of them are reasonably part of mine or of most peoples' however.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miisa View Post
As for the thread title, I always read it as "Mormons with guns". Which would be actually interesting.
I frequently do the same thing.

:yup:
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 05-14-2013, 03:58 PM
Adam's Avatar
Adam Adam is offline
Vice Cobra Assistant Commander
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: XMVDCCXLIX
Images: 29
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

7NEWS - Aurora PD: Student suffers 'significant injury' in accidental shooting at Rangeview High parking lot - Local Story

Quote:
AURORA, Colo. - Aurora police are investigating an accidental shooting that happened in the parking lot of Rangeview High School and left one student injured Monday.

About an hour after school let out for the day, the student was getting a ride home from a school employee who also works a second job as an armed security officer, according to police. The employee was trying to put his gun into the glove box of the car when the weapon fired, hitting the student in the leg.
If only there had been a Good Guy with a gun hiding in the back seat to shoot this doofus.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
ARMORED HOT DOG
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-15-2013), Clutch Munny (05-14-2013), Crumb (05-14-2013), Dingfod (05-14-2013), Kael (05-15-2013), lisarea (05-14-2013), Nullifidian (05-17-2013), Pan Narrans (05-14-2013), SR71 (05-16-2013), Stephen Maturin (05-15-2013), Stormlight (05-15-2013), The Man (05-14-2013), Watser? (05-14-2013)
  #267  
Old 05-14-2013, 04:13 PM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMXCII
Images: 1
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Too bad the movement to restrict access to guns never thought of doing so in order to reduce this sort of thing. But no. They decided it was all about violent crime!
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-15-2013), Stormlight (05-15-2013), The Man (05-14-2013)
  #268  
Old 05-14-2013, 09:31 PM
Dingfod's Avatar
Dingfod Dingfod is offline
A fellow sophisticate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cowtown, Kansas
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 21
Images: 92
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Whoa, a high school student old enough to work as an armed security guard? Armed guards here in Oklahoma have to be over 21. Google-fu showed me that Colorado is 18. What a bunch of trigger-happy morons.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 05-15-2013, 12:04 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

There were armed security guards in Africa that were barely 10 years old. And high on cocaine. There were armed security guards in Afghanistan that could hit a guy between the eyes over a distance of 300 meters and still didn't give a fuck.

ETA: I forgot, the latter one was 13 or something. But it was an AK 47. At least that's what the other guy in the documentary film reported. That one was a Russian who said that the Genovese rules about women, children, and all the rest were basically nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 05-15-2013, 01:03 AM
Watser?'s Avatar
Watser? Watser? is offline
Fishy mokey
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Furrin parts
Posts: LMMMDXCI
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

It's pretty hard to hit anything with an AK47 from 300 meters, let alone shoot someone between the eyes.
__________________
:typingmonkey:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dingfod (05-16-2013), Nullifidian (05-17-2013), The Man (10-06-2015)
  #271  
Old 05-15-2013, 03:39 AM
Ymir's blood's Avatar
Ymir's blood Ymir's blood is offline
Coffin Creep
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The nightmare realm
Posts: XXXDCCCIII
Images: 67
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

What gun would you recommend?
__________________
Much of MADNESS, and more of SIN, and HORROR the soul of the plot.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Janet (05-15-2013), livius drusus (05-16-2013), Nullifidian (05-17-2013), Stormlight (05-15-2013), The Man (10-06-2015), Watser? (05-15-2013)
  #272  
Old 05-15-2013, 06:33 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Do you have someone in particular in mind?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (10-06-2015)
  #273  
Old 05-15-2013, 04:18 PM
Watser?'s Avatar
Watser? Watser? is offline
Fishy mokey
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Furrin parts
Posts: LMMMDXCI
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Sniper gun?
__________________
:typingmonkey:
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 05-16-2013, 01:10 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict... The cup is empty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCCXXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 2
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Man accidentally shoots himself at Jupiter Bowling Allley, scares other bowlers

Quote:
JUPITER, Fla. - A man accidentally shot himself Tuesday night at the Jupiter Lanes Bowling Alley located on Maplewood Drive.
The man's own gun accidentally discharged, injuring him, said Jupiter Police Officer Adam Brown.
Several witnesses said that the gun was in the bowler's pocket when it went off, terrifying other players.
The man was taken to St. Mary's Medical Center with non-life-threatening injuries, Brown said.
He will not face any charges, according to police.


Read more: Man accidentally shoots himself at Jupiter Bowling Allley, scares other bowlers

:sirens:
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (05-16-2013), ChuckF (05-16-2013), Clutch Munny (05-16-2013), Janet (05-16-2013), Kael (05-16-2013), livius drusus (05-16-2013), Nullifidian (05-17-2013), Pan Narrans (05-16-2013), Stormlight (05-16-2013), The Man (05-16-2013)
  #275  
Old 05-16-2013, 01:53 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XXCDXXX
Images: 2
Default Re: I think we need a morons with guns thrad

Ok. Before we rush to judgement, have we stopped to consider whether, when appropriately framed in precise hypothetical circumstances that any thinking person is capable of imagining, this incident might possibly, in real actual fact, be a demonstration of excellent gun safety practices? Because I am concerned about magical thinking.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-16-2013), Angakuk (05-16-2013), Ari (05-16-2013), chunksmediocrites (05-16-2013), Clutch Munny (05-17-2013), erimir (05-16-2013), Janet (05-16-2013), Kael (05-16-2013), livius drusus (05-16-2013), Nullifidian (05-17-2013), Pan Narrans (05-16-2013), Sock Puppet (05-16-2013), SR71 (05-16-2013), The Man (05-16-2013), Watser? (05-16-2013), Ymir's blood (05-16-2013)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.06019 seconds with 14 queries