See, this is why everyone should be packing heat at all times

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,316
10,814
136
I already figure all drivers are "deaf, dumb, blind and malicious."


I for one am only malicious! :p

I do see you but I don't care.... the only "respect" anyone rates on the road relates directly to the weight/size of the vehicle they drive not the "meat" behind the wheel! /s

;)

Seriously all turn-signals do in NYC is warn the other drivers you want to change lanes so they can close the gap and road-ragers don't simply "brake-check" they STOP in the left lane of the highway and open fire!

Mad-Max-high-fatality-road.png


*(I was a courier in NYC for many years I can't help myself!)
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,698
136
Youtube has this unique cutting-edge feature often referred to as "search"?

;)
Sure, ahem, I do that daily, but some here appear to be in the know and asking for tips doesn't necessarily elicit snide replies... :rolleyes: I realize I poke for hints more than most, have for years. I do it thoughtfully, though, and try to do it more when I think that I am not the only person who will benefit from tips/info.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,698
136
I already figure all drivers are "deaf, dumb, blind and malicious."
I roller skate a city street 10 miles most days. It's a survival technique. I also bicycle a lot in the city. But TBH I am more nervous on the highway in my car. Not that I'm a bad driver, I am not, but I can't exercise the same survival techniques in a car as I can on skate or bike, also the speeds are higher. There are, I feel, a much higher proportion of off the wall highway drivers these days than in past years, at least here in the SF Bay Area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi
Jul 27, 2020
19,823
13,588
146
There are, I feel, a much higher proportion of off the wall highway drivers these days than in past years, at least here in the SF Bay Area.
I used to play this game called "Cisco Heat" a lot when I was a kid. I don't know why I'm imagining you on your skates, rolling downhill...


Deserves a remake. Though the new thing in the remake would be avoiding other cars or their angry drivers will open fire on you and damage your car and then it's game over.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,316
10,814
136
Sure, ahem, I do that daily, but some here appear to be in the know and asking for tips doesn't necessarily elicit snide replies... :rolleyes: I realize I poke for hints more than most, have for years. I do it thoughtfully, though, and try to do it more when I think that I am not the only person who will benefit from tips/info.


Actually...... :p ;)

51DwbOS9BGL._AC_SY580_.jpg
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Sure, ahem, I do that daily, but some here appear to be in the know and asking for tips doesn't necessarily elicit snide replies... :rolleyes: I realize I poke for hints more than most, have for years. I do it thoughtfully, though, and try to do it more when I think that I am not the only person who will benefit from tips/info.
Its a perfectly fine question, I read it as, "do you sub to someone in particular"... *shrugs*.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Comparing a gun to any of those is insanely idiotic.

A guns sole purpose is to maim and kill. That's it. In a compact easy to carry item meant to be able to deal death and injury from close and afar. Anything else it does is not its primary trait.

A car's main purpose is to transport people and stuff.

Many things have primary purposes that can also on some level hurt people. Nobody is arguing to regulate everything that can hurt people the same as things that are purely designed to do so.

They are nowhere near alike.

I can't believe people still make these really stupid arguments.

It's kindergarten level logic.
The reason for guns are designed to hurt people is because there are people who want to hurt people and guns are effective by being hurtful to prevent that from happening, your kindergarten upside down logic not withstanding. The people most endangered by guns are those who can’t defend themselves. Nothing, of course, is idiot proof.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,698
136
I used to play this game called "Cisco Heat" a lot when I was a kid. I don't know why I'm imagining you on your skates, rolling downhill...


Deserves a remake. Though the new thing in the remake would be avoiding other cars or their angry drivers will open fire on you and damage your car and then it's game over.
One day my mom and dad came to town and I drove them around. Guess my sister was in the front seat. My dad suddenly says (literally), "don't take this wrong, I mean it as a compliment, you drive like there's a cop on your tail." It didn't bother me.
 
Last edited:

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,698
136
If we can have restrictions on 1A we can have restrictions on 2A
Everybody realizes you can't say just anything, in fact most people aren't in the habit of speaking their minds. But when it comes to gun owners, there's a lot of denial going on. Guns are a mutherfucker.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
“It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns.”

This was posted on Facebook by the Texas mother who then shot and killed her daughters 3 months later. The irony. She had a documented history of mental illness, and her emotional volatility is why her husband was insisting on a divorce, which is what the argument was about. The police had previously visited their house 17 times for "domestic disturbances." She clearly should not have been permitted to own a gun. She made herself the poster child for why we need stricter background checks.

When you consider the road rage incident, you'd think even someone inclined to shoot at other drivers under normal circumstances would decide not to do so with their own children in their car. That is the problem with rage though. It can reach levels where people simply cannot control it, cannot stay their hand regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the risks. It could in theory happen to anyone. But even if we shouldn't keep guns away from everyone, we should at least keep them away from those with documented mental illness like the Texas mom, no?
 
Last edited:

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,698
136
But even if we shouldn't keep guns away from everyone, we should at least keep them away from those with documented mental illness like the Texas mom, no?
TBH, I AM in favor of keeping guns from everybody. NOBODY should be able to "own" a gun, an implement designed to kill. If you want to hunt meat to eat or protect your assets, rent, under strict controls. If you need to protect because it's your job to do so (police, National Guard, armed forces), you are checked out your weaponry, you return it according to rules/laws/protocols. People are shortsighted and will not see it my way, but that's their problem not mine.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Captante
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
If we can have restrictions on 1A we can have restrictions on 2A
What restrictions would those be ? Not being able to vote 2 months before the actual election with automatic absentee ballots mailed to every person and no checks on signatures or checks on whether they're even eligible to vote? Yep, i thought so.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,081
21,202
136
The reason for guns are designed to hurt people is because there are people who want to hurt people and guns are effective by being hurtful to prevent that from happening, your kindergarten upside down logic not withstanding. The people most endangered by guns are those who can’t defend themselves. Nothing, of course, is idiot proof.

the reason a gun can work for defense IS BECAUSE ITS EXISTENCE IS BECAUSE IT IS A PURE EFFICIENT MAIMING AND KILLING MACHINE. as I stated.

I did not argue for banning all guns nor did I argue that guns can't service a purpose because of their inherent characteristics.

yet still, his comparisons were absolutely terrible and you should know that. we can't have an honest discussion about reasonable access to guns if you can't admit what they are and aren't before any discussion starts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
DTi9O7I.jpg


“Well Regulated” WTF does that even mean. - Taj probably.
Coming from someone that thinks showing identification when you vote is some kind of racist plot instead of a reasonable check of eligibility and voting security. When you buy a firearm you have to show id, have a background check, and then pay for the privilege of having your rights infringed. Let's apply that to voting.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,119
10,943
136
Coming from someone that thinks showing identification when you vote is some kind of racist plot instead of a reasonable check of eligibility and voting security. When you buy a firearm you have to show id, have a background check, and then pay for the privilege of having your rights infringed. Let's apply that to voting.
What do you think an ID check is when you've already had your ID check at voter registration? Lol.
Doesn't everyone have a photo id like a driver's license? No, poor, rural, elderly, minority voters are disproportionately affected because of the lack of need and/or cost in time and money to obtain a valid photo id.

It's also telling when a state like Texas will allow a CWP card to be used but not a Texas state university photo id. Once again, conservatives showing their hypocrisy

Maybe we should have an id check every time you go to use your guns. And if you don't use them often enough, you have to go through a background check again because your name was removed from the registry.
 

JWade

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,273
197
106
www.heatware.com
from what i see majority of urban people are against guns, most rural people are for guns. has zero to do with intelligence and some may say. (lots here will say rural people are ignorant). States have various hunting seasons, some even have pistol season. ESPECIALLY with how bad inflation is and how much prices of meat have skyrocketted, more rural people have gone back to hunting. $300 hunting rifle and $30 in ammo can get you $600 in meat easily, and then have that same rifle next year. That is assuming you only get one deer. But there is doe season, open season, buck season, lets not forget duck/quail/pheasant season with a shotgun and small game season. I grew up rural, single mother raising 5 boys, i know first hand how much being able to hunt helps put food on the table.

There will always be cases like the ones linked here, they are bad, but they make up a super small amount of what happens. But as always they are always center stage for control. One child getting shot is always bad. Gun control advocates use them for their reasoning. You are more likely to get hit by a drunk driver than shot by someone. But no one is calling for the ban of alchohal (been tried before, didnt work out too well, expect the same if guns are banned)
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,119
10,943
136
from what i see majority of urban people are against guns, most rural people are for guns. has zero to do with intelligence and some may say. (lots here will say rural people are ignorant). States have various hunting seasons, some even have pistol season. ESPECIALLY with how bad inflation is and how much prices of meat have skyrocketted, more rural people have gone back to hunting. $300 hunting rifle and $30 in ammo can get you $600 in meat easily, and then have that same rifle next year. That is assuming you only get one deer. But there is doe season, open season, buck season, lets not forget duck/quail/pheasant season with a shotgun and small game season. I grew up rural, single mother raising 5 boys, i know first hand how much being able to hunt helps put food on the table.

There will always be cases like the ones linked here, they are bad, but they make up a super small amount of what happens. But as always they are always center stage for control. One child getting shot is always bad. Gun control advocates use them for their reasoning. You are more likely to get hit by a drunk driver than shot by someone. But no one is calling for the ban of alchohal (been tried before, didnt work out too well, expect the same if guns are banned)
I think if you banned all semi-auto firearms and all small arms - which means you'd still have bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns (plus a few other esoteric styles) - most people would be good with that from the "gun control" side.

Hunters could still hunt, and the vast majority of guns that do damage in society are now illegal and will get taken out of circulation over time.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,316
10,814
136
It's also telling when a state like Texas will allow a CWP card to be used but not a Texas state university photo id. Once again, conservatives showing their hypocrisy

To be fair a "college ID" isn't legal proof of age/identity anywhere not just in Texas while a state-issued ID would be. (try using one to get into a club or buy a six-pack)

And I'm pretty sure I was asked for my ID the last few times I voted in Connecticut but I can't honestly recall.... I know they checked to make sure I was registered. (my polling location is a 3 minute walk from my home so I never even bothered with mail-in ballots)

Although I'm sure I'll have to listen to a bunch of angry ranting for "not toeing the AT party-line" I have to say that I'm in FAVOR of requiring a state-issued ID be shown in order to vote sorry.
 
Last edited:

nOOky

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,004
2,025
136
To be fair a "college ID" isn't legal proof of age/identity anywhere not just in Texas while a state-issued ID would be. (try using one to get into a club or buy a six-pack)

And I'm pretty sure I was asked for my ID the last few times I voted in Connecticut but I can't honestly recall.... I know they checked to make sure I was registered. (my polling location is a 3 minute walk from my home so I never even bothered with mail-in ballots)

Although I'm sure I'll have to listen to a bunch of angry ranting for "not toeing the AT party-line" I have to say that I'm in FAVOR of requiring a state-issued ID be shown in order to vote sorry.

This is already a thread derail, but I just want to ask those that have never voted absentee if they know how hard it actually is? There are steps to verify your identity along the way whether it's your physical address or your driver license (in my state you need ID) and if you make a mistake on the thing it can get tossed. My wife signed in the wrong place and didn't initial where she was supposed to, thankfully being rural and small the volunteer called her and asked her to correct it else her vote would not have counted.

I just hate hearing all the time by the rubes about how the Democrats can magically vote more than once and vote for other people with mail in ballots. As we've seen from the very few people that have actually tried that shit (mostly R's) they bust you for that.