Another gun toting 'NUT JOB'...

[Mare Tranquillity]

True, a women's weapon of choice usually is not a gun. They use stress to kill us men. They dive us to hypertension and heart disease. They marry us and then drive us into the grave with their nagging, whining, complaining, etc., until those who do not die from the stress, commit suicide. It is no wonder that most of the people who snap and commit multiple murders are men...women do not have to put up with being married to women. Given the statistics on the longevity difference between men and women, women are the more murderous of the two. For God's sake women, have a little mercy just shoot us!!!

Why don't you just marry a man then? You can belch, fart, scratch, watch football, and leave the toilet seat up and no one will care.

 

[Bunz]

Thank you, that bears out my contention that women rarely use guns, they usually prefer other less bloody ways of killing people. Remember, dog, we're discussing guns here. Not one example of a woman getting a gun and slaughtering strangers in a Post Office or from a Texas University tower--those kinds of rampages seem to be particularly masculine.

What percentage of serial killers are women, I wonder.

In comparison it is very low. I think it is also worthy to point out that when it comes to suicide, men are much more likely to use a firearm, where a female is more likely to use overdose or other form of poisoning.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

None of the weapons you mentioned have the simplicity and power of guns, most of the things you mentioned are useless without a LOT of practice and a high level of skill. Guns are easy... and therein lies the danger. With a bow and arrow you can get off 6 shots a minute and you're accurate up to about 8 feet, slingshots about the same, but any idiot with a semi-auto rifle and extra clips can get off a hundred rounds a minute with bullets that will kill at half a mile or more.

Your argument could be used the other way too, why limit ANY weapon? Is there any weapon that you think SHOULD be regulated? Atomic bombs? Cruise missles? Tanks?

You need a high level of skill to kill somebody with a knife or a rock?

For the record, a bow is accurate to much farther than 8 feet lol. You'd have to be legally blind to miss very often at a range of 8 ft. The same goes for the slingshot.

And while rifles can easily fire projectiles over half a mile, you would be hard pressed to find many people who can hit anything that far out without a specialized sniper rifle and a little luck. Most people are unlikely to hit a target 100 yards away much less half a mile.

As for your question, I would say individuals should be limited to small arms, and unlimited IN small arms. By that I mean that people shouldn't be keeping anything that isn't man portable in their house. But once we establish that small arms are ok, there should not be limits on how many or of which type a law abiding citizen can own. I have often pondered the idea of how we should handle larger more complex weapons, since the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to arm the people in part against the potential tyranny of the government. Perhaps we could have public armories managed and funded (outside the authority of the federal government) within individual states.

 

[dahermit]

Why don't you just marry a man then? You can belch, fart, scratch, watch football, and leave the toilet seat up and no one will care.

No, I do not find men sexually attractive. What I find attractive are extremely intelligent women. Smart enough to keep their hormones from over-riding their thought processes, or in the very least to know the difference between logic and a hormone influenced distortion (extremely, extremely rare if they exist at all). Or, relative to the gun control argument, why do the women in general go nuts with fear when they see a mouse, and when they see a gun. Neither are dangerous. The mouse in any context, and the gun only when someone picks it up.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No, I do not find men sexually attractive. What I find attractive are extremely intelligent women. Smart enough to keep their hormones from over-riding their thought processes, or in the very least to know the difference between logic and a hormone influenced distortion (extremely, extremely rare if they exist at all). Or, relative to the gun control argument, why do the women in general go nuts with fear when they see a mouse, and when they see a gun. Neither are dangerous. The mouse in any context, and the gun only when someone picks it up.

Why are so many men afflicted with homophobia? Gay men present little or no threat to straight men, even being propositioned (which is a compliment) can be dealt with by saying no thanks. Some questions just don't have answers.

My suggestion is that you look into dating a post-op male-to-female transsexual, they can be very attractive, can't get pregnant, have much better control of their hormones since they take them every day, and most share your disdain for mice.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You need a high level of skill to kill somebody with a knife or a rock?

Comparatively speaking, yes, a knife or a rock require far more skill and EFFORT than pullling a trigger. If a 120 pound female with no knife fighting experience came after you I suspect that you could save yourself fairly easily. If she had a gun you'd be toast.

For the record, a bow is accurate to much farther than 8 feet lol. You'd have to be legally blind to miss very often at a range of 8 ft. The same goes for the slingshot.

The same 120 pound female shows up in your office with a bow and arrow how long would it take for you to disarm her? Both bows and slingshots require practice and a level of physical strength not necessary for a gun.

And while rifles can easily fire projectiles over half a mile, you would be hard pressed to find many people who can hit anything that far out without a specialized sniper rifle and a little luck. Most people are unlikely to hit a target 100 yards away much less half a mile.

I wasn't refering to sniping, I was thinking about an individual shooting into a crowd--you would be in far more danger for a much longer distance than if the person had a bow or slingshot. And it's not just range, it's also number of shots per minute. With a bow or slingshot it would be a few per minute with close range deadly force, but with a gun it could be hundreds of rounds a minute with deadly force (however random) out to more than half a mile.

As for your question, I would say individuals should be limited to small arms, and unlimited IN small arms. By that I mean that people shouldn't be keeping anything that isn't man portable in their house. But once we establish that small arms are ok, there should not be limits on how many or of which type a law abiding citizen can own. I have often pondered the idea of how we should handle larger more complex weapons, since the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to arm the people in part against the potential tyranny of the government. Perhaps we could have public armories managed and funded (outside the authority of the federal government) within individual states.

We agree, but I'd hate to see organized crime or a gang get into the private armory.

 

[dahermit]

Why are so many men afflicted with homophobia? Gay men present little or no threat to straight men, even being propositioned (which is a compliment) can be dealt with by saying no thanks. Some questions just don't have answers.

How in the hell did you made the conclusion that I was homophobic from my post? It was intended as, and obviously misogynistic. Go back and read it s-l-o-w-l-y. When it comes to homosexuals, they have the right to exist, do what they do, and it is none of my business.

My suggestion is that you look into dating a post-op male-to-female transsexual, they can be very attractive, can't get pregnant, have much better control of their hormones since they take them every day, and most share your disdain for mice.

I have no interest in dating anyone who was not born a female. It is my personal preference. And, if you had read s-l-o-w-l-y, without prejudice, you would have understood that I do not have a disdain for mice. That is usually a womanly dysfunction; as is the irrational fear of guns.

 

[dogtowner]

Thank you, that bears out my contention that women rarely use guns, they usually prefer other less bloody ways of killing people. Remember, dog, we're discussing guns here. Not one example of a woman getting a gun and slaughtering strangers in a Post Office or from a Texas University tower--those kinds of rampages seem to be particularly masculine.

What percentage of serial killers are women, I wonder.

I think their nature has them take pains tro inflict suffering ergo the poisining. Far more malicious and cruel. Tend to be mad at individuals, not groups. Hell hath no fury and all. But some are just sociopaths too.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

How in the hell did you made the conclusion that I was homophobic from my post? It was intended as, and obviously misogynistic. Go back and read it s-l-o-w-l-y. When it comes to homosexuals, they have the right to exist, do what they do, and it is none of my business.

I have no interest in dating anyone who was not born a female. It is my personal preference. And, if you had read s-l-o-w-l-y, without prejudice, you would have understood that I do not have a disdain for mice. That is usually a womanly dysfunction; as is the irrational fear of guns.

You missed my point. I was not suggesting that you were homophobic, I was addressing all the questions you asked about women that have no answer with a question about men that has no answer. It wasn't intended to say anything about you.

The issue is not quite so simple for transsexuals since a male-to-female tranny believes that she WAS born a woman, she just has a birth defect. This is actually correct in that transsexuality is a birth defect that occurs in utero during fetal development. I never was a man, I never could make male behavior seem reasonable to me, I have estrogen receptors in my brain rather than testosterone receptors. But be that as it may, date whomever you wish, I'm sorry that women disappoint you so much though.