Messages

well, having fired one on numerous with a great deal of accuracy, i will disagree.

So by disagreeing you are saying it's hard or easy?

With a knowledge of firearms it seemed to come very easy.

I may not be being totally honest here. When I was 17 I was in the army and our weapon was the M-16. But it was decades later that I shot an AK-47.

Well, that does make a difference!

well, having fired one on numerous with a great deal of accuracy, i will disagree.

So by disagreeing you are saying it's hard or easy?

With a knowledge of firearms it seemed to come very easy.

That would still not allow you to fight a coordinated group of soldier. Training goes beyond operating a firearm, and for how much experience of any kind a civilian may have I doubt there isn't someone in the military focused only on the improvement of its soldier's effectiveness in such conditions. It's just that military "technology" (and I don't mean just firearms) went much further away from what a common man with a weapon could do since the war of indipendence.

Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.

What argument?  That anyone who owns a firearm is "compensating"?

You're a fucking idiot.  Please die of cancer.

LOL WUT

That whole sentence wasn't a real argument. I meant that piece of text above it.

edit: Oh, beside the first part. I actually think people in the U.S.A. like guns more than we do. That's why gun regulations is such a sensitive topic I guess.

No, I just hate assholes that try to simplify arguments by claiming that everyone who owns one is on some Freudian compensation kick.

In short, you.

Asshole.

Sure, sure. Keep feeling angry about it if you like so. If I just wanted to simplify I would have only answered with that sentence tohugh.

Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.

What argument?  That anyone who owns a firearm is "compensating"?

You're a fucking idiot.  Please die of cancer.

LOL WUT

That whole sentence wasn't a real argument. I meant that piece of text above it.

edit: Oh, beside the first part. I actually think people in the U.S.A. like guns more than we do. That's why gun regulations is such a sensitive topic I guess.

[LEGALLY]

Just my two eurocents: gun limitations actually means that more often than not people will not expect to find guns LEGALLY and won't feel a need to possess one to keep the egde. Most robbers bring a knife if anything, ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW SO GUN CONTROL MEANS NOTHING TO THEM except in places bad enough to have everyone bring some kind of weapon. Beside, you're not going to fight an army of trained people with ultralight plasic assault weapons using a common rifle. Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.

Anyway! I guess if someone tried to do that in the U.S. right now you would have a lot of people feel deprived of any right to defend oneself and get an AK trough the black market.

BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!

Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.

Not really, it doesn't work like that. Stealing something here is a way less serious offense than doing the same thing with a gun, it's not either breaking the law or not doing so, there's a lot of stuff between "storming someone's house with assault rifles" and "a law abiding citizen". If people don't feel threatened to find armed resistance then they're just less likely to bring weapons themselves. Even with more restrictive policies here most murders are still performed with legally registered weapons, while many burglars just run for it if you surprise them in your house, or grab wathever comes in handy (like your gun). Your argument only applies to people that would really find no difference in 10 or 20 more years of jail: organized crime, mafia and such. You're still not going to do anything about that by yourself with a gun anyway .

It is my understanding that the Swiss are required to serve in their military (where they receive their rifle proficiency).  i can't get behind that.
It is also my understanding that, while they are each issued a rifle to keep at their house, they are also issued a certain limited quantity of ammunition, and they are not able to purchase ammunition freely, as we are here.  i couldn't get behind that either.  I like having the problem of wondering whether the foundation of my house is rated for the amount of lead in my closet....

Also, nobody promised "safe".  In fact, "safe" is the enemy of both fun and freedom.

simply wonderful. 

Well, you aren't going to learn how to use an assault rifle to check on your governement by practicing in your backyard. You don't get a driver license on simple trust, why not make sure you actually know what you are doing? Proper use of a weapon may actually require some commitment, having a gun doesn't make a warrior. For me it's either a strict regulation or "everyone handles the biggest gun a single man can handle". The latter would probably be better.

I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?

You have just managed to reach the 'Fucking Idiot' level. Now go away.

Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.

[LEGALLY]

Just my two eurocents: gun limitations actually means that more often than not people will not expect to find guns LEGALLY and won't feel a need to possess one to keep the egde. Most robbers bring a knife if anything, ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW SO GUN CONTROL MEANS NOTHING TO THEM except in places bad enough to have everyone bring some kind of weapon. Beside, you're not going to fight an army of trained people with ultralight plasic assault weapons using a common rifle. Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.

Anyway! I guess if someone tried to do that in the U.S. right now you would have a lot of people feel deprived of any right to defend oneself and get an AK trough the black market.

BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!

Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.

Not really, it doesn't work like that. Stealing something here is a way less serious offense than doing the same thing with a gun, it's not either breaking the law or not doing so, there's a lot of stuff between "storming someone's house with assault rifles" and "a law abiding citizen". If people don't feel threatened to find armed resistance then they're just less likely to bring weapons themselves. Even with more restrictive policies here most murders are still performed with legally registered weapons, while many burglars just run for it if you surprise them in your house, or grab wathever comes in handy (like your gun). Your argument only applies to people that would really find no difference in 10 or 20 more years of jail: organized crime, mafia and such. You're still not going to do anything about that by yourself with a gun anyway .

It is my understanding that the Swiss are required to serve in their military (where they receive their rifle proficiency).  i can't get behind that.
It is also my understanding that, while they are each issued a rifle to keep at their house, they are also issued a certain limited quantity of ammunition, and they are not able to purchase ammunition freely, as we are here.  i couldn't get behind that either.  I like having the problem of wondering whether the foundation of my house is rated for the amount of lead in my closet....

Also, nobody promised "safe".  In fact, "safe" is the enemy of both fun and freedom.

simply wonderful. 

Well, you aren't going to learn how to use an assault rifle to check on your governement by practicing in your backyard. You don't get a driver license on simple trust, why not make sure you actually know what you are doing? Proper use of a weapon may actually require some commitment, having a gun doesn't make a warrior. For me it's either a strict regulation or "everyone handles the biggest gun a single man can handle". The latter would probably be better.

I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?

Well, at least there aren't any forest full of americium from a broken nuclear reactor or something. No wait-

Just my two eurocents: gun limitations actually means that more often than not people will not expect to find guns and won't feel a need to possess one to keep the egde. Most robbers bring a knife if anything, except in places bad enough to have everyone bring some kind of weapon. Beside, you're not going to fight an army of trained people with ultralight plasic assault weapons using a common rifle. Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.

Anyway! I guess if someone tried to do that in the U.S. right now you would have a lot of people feel deprived of any right to defend oneself and get an AK trough the black market.

BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!

Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.

Zombies are accepted only in a few countries and most of them are Haiti.

During a trip to somewhere, as I entered the town, a giant truck with a big red apple and a letter Q (which is as good a K, since there is no K in italian) greeted me, and the numbers on the same face of the truck added up to 32.

Something had to happen. That same night, my perfeclty working cellphone decided that, countrary to what the indicator seemed to believe, indeed his battery was empty. As I woke up witouth his aid, I hastened to not miss the bus assuming it was probably already too late, but lo and behold: it was hours earlier.

As I stubled confused across the town, waiting some 3 hours for the bus, a bookstore sold me a copy of "THE FOUR SUNS" or "How mansonry explains the REAL history of mankind descending from the same population that OFFICIAL HISTORY conspires to ignore!"

And the book said: how omnipresent is the sign of the cross! Sometimes you just have to disregard that other little lines, or you had one arm less or one arm too much, bent arms, wings and some were actually knots... but lines do cross!

How deluded you are, little book! How many simple symbols and geometric motifs can be interpreted as a kind of "cross" just by looking hard enough! You just look at all the details and select the ones that suit your needs!

And as I went home, a street sign said "50" and was followed by "Bar 23". Indeed Eris was speking to me.

And she was.

If there is something more important than producing giant ridable bunnies that biotechnology should accomplish, that's pokemons.

So why is it I was totally cool with the mouse, and when I saw it was a bat, I instantly went apebatshit?

Because flying stuff can get into your clothes and your mouth in a moment and eat you from the inside.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I SAID NO EQUILATERAL.

Too easy.

So, I keep asking this question and I never get a conclusive answer.

Iscosceles or scalene?

NO equilateral.

If you can find one infinite string how can you fit a second one?  If you were to have two infinite numbers, then you need to have the first digits of both of them. One will have to appear before the other one, so the first string will have to end. By induction you can only say that, given any finite sequence of digits from an infinite (or finite) number, they are bound to appear if the conjecture is true.