Guns, for em or against em?

However, in my experience, humans as a whole don't tend to be as social, nor as intellegent as other apes, and do this kind of thing quite often, especially in situations in which they can hide behind the anonymity of the web.

I will make one exception to my position on guns. I do thin it is okay to own and use a Microwave Gun which basically emits microwaves to cook people.

I only make this one exception because it would be really fucking cool to cook people with a gun. Not like cook them well done but more of just a slight browning.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/wirq319.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/19/ixworld.html

Humans are big ol' poop tossers.

Add that to the "Gay Bomb" and you can have Key West anywhere on the planet!!
Their mad I tell ya --Maaaaaaaaaaad!

Humans are big ol' poop tossers.

I wonder if the nice tan you'd get is really worth the painful experience. I could see them adapting that in spa's here in the US.

Such concision. *applauds Reitsuki's ability to address complex issues with such elegance*

Reitsuki, in case it is not obvious, I'm not making fun of you. And sorry for naming your name, but I tried addressing it to "the gentleperson from Rhode Island" but it didn't scan well.

The forgoing is not meant to imply that Reitsuki's natural person has any connection to Rhode Island, as I have no idea of actual geography. It was just a metasyntactic variable that sounded better than "Montevideo" or "Interzone".

I was kind of hoping to have this discussion myself, and some others, when I posted the post... though I disagree with your framing of the issue . I am kind of busy at work right now, but when I get some time later, I will flesh out my position on all of this.

I do think the "if you outlaw X, only outlaws will have X" argument is relevant. Also, lessons to be learned from the "War on Drugs/etc..."

Of course. If it WAS the case, then the UK (which has very strict gun laws) would be rampant with gun crime. And oddly, it isn't.

How do you expect to open frank and civil debate when you always open your discourse with controversial and invalidated statements? I will ignore your veiled personal attack on what you perceive is my posting personality and shake my head that Jeska let it ride. When you can cease to stereotype peoples not of your mindset I will be more than happy to debate with you. Kendra and myself have mastered this, why are you so obstinate? Your proclivity for instigating controversial and heated debate is what tires me. I am in no way trying to silence your right to speak so get over it. When you grow up a bit and can change your tone of acceptance with my views in regards to civil debate, I will respond accordingly. Good Day.

Reitsuki, you know Jeska had to delete your post !! You dismissed their girl as utterly full of BS. I direct you to [her] response to me which was full of personal attacks and left standing tall and proud.

Sure, if you collect them as a hobby or something, I don't see anything wrong with that... if it is a hobby, why not render them unable to fire rounds so that they can't be used as a weapon?

And as far as simply owning a gun, I think you'd find that more people are shot and killed by family members than people shot and killed by criminals they've never met. Your chances of being shot and killed by a gun go up exponentially when you have a gun in your home.

As for the whole sword thing -- swords can be used in sport against another trained person. What sport do you see people firing guns at eachother?

Also if we zoom out to 30 000 meters and assume everyone in the entire country is armed. Think everyone is going to be happy that way and not mess with eachother? I don't think so... looks more like a mexican stand-off to me. Just takes one person to snap and pull their trigger before half the room is dead.

Seems more dangerous to me than good.

I heard someone mentioning opening a government program to classify and test gun-owners and I like your idea of using ways to lower the violence level of society in general.

Myself, I still don't find guns very practical for anything but killing.

Half the fun of owning a gun is firing it.

I think what should be done is keep guns in the hand of the smart and responsible.

For target shooting, why not produce non-lethal weapons if that's what smart gun owners are after. Maybe something that only recreates the feeling of firing a weapon and instead uses lasers to track the target hit?

Then perhaps no one would need to produce real lethal weapons except for military applications... which will hopefully become unnecessary one day as well.

I'm not dismissing your point of view Icon but... What would you do with the sport of hunting ? Ban that because it requires lethal weapons ? I will also note here that not all people that hunt are doing it because of the sport. There are still people whom hunt to put food on the table as archaic as that may seem.

Even if we did do away with the 2nd amendment and make lethal firearms illegal we would never be able to anihilate the countless weapons in existence and the criminal environment would reign the day. Sorry, but if this movement ever see's the light of day I will lobby against it with all of my heart.

Last year over 320 people were murdered in baltimore city....90% of those muders were comitted by criminals with guns. Even though the statistics the past few years don't show it , Baltimore has the highest murder rate per capita in the United States we just learned to classify and hide it well. So far the year 2005 has started off with a bang....there has been a murder every day committed by a criminal with a gun.

Passing gun laws won't stop criminals from using guns but could prevent citizens from protecting themselves.

Guns don't kill people....people kill people.

Just so you know I don't own a gun......but the day someone tries to take my right to own a gun away I'll surely buy one.

This has been a very civil discussion so far.. which happens to be rather abnormal as of late. So hooray for us.

As for this point ... I wouldn't want to live in Baltimore if that's the case. Now you say criminal -- but what kind of cases are we looking at. Because let's say a housewife shoots her abusive husband; it's still a ciminal activity... BUT it also falls into what I was saying that people who keep a gun in their house are more likely to be shot by a family member than by some criminal sneaking through their window looking to shoot someone.

So if people are killing people with guns, and it's not guns that kill people, how are people fascillitating the possibility for these kinds of crimes to happen?

What's a better way to protect ourselves from murders involving guns if we can't remove the production and distribution of firearms?

So far the best I've heard is gun control and some sort of way to lower the violence in society. The worst I've heard is to give out more guns and just keep things the way they are.



Thank you for not completely dismissing my point.

And yes, there are still hunters and such that use weapons to kill for food, etc.

But with criminal activity -- would they well up against society and take over the country if non-criminals couldn't purchase guns anymore?

Hmmm... well if the production, sale, distribution, and importation of weapons became illegal I'd imagine police forces could spend more time stopping smugglers than investigating already dead people. I guess we can only speculate, but I'd imagine if it took smuggling to get weapons into the country, that it would be harder for domestic murders and petty murders to occur. You'd have to be a serious badass to get your hands on a weapon and go through the trouble of killing someone... then it would be easy and clear, bright as day, to find the intent and motive.

Still... correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the largest percentage of murders with a gun are committed domestically.

The majority are drug related killings. Gang killing gang and gang killing people who inform on them. That would be 70% . Random robberies and fights add up to 20% the last 10% is family or lover related.



Guns are inanimate pieces of metal...they neither choose or need to do anything...people make these decisions. People can just as easily and do kill with knives, hammers, screwdrivers, ice picks, and on and on. These are all inanimate objects ...people give them purpose.



Removing guns won't stop murders just as putting a lock on your shed won't prevent a robbery. A lock is only for an honest man....if guns were banned the honest man wouldn't have one but you can bet all the criminals will.



If you take away the guns the only thing that will change is the maner in which people kill people....they next big thing could be slingshots. If you dump loads of guns on society the murder/death rate will rise dramatically. Human beings have a perpencity to violence and nothing will ever change that unfortunately





The police can't find more than 10% of the drugs being smuggled into the country I fear their success rate with guns would be dismal as well. A gun can be manufactured with as little as a screwdriver and a bar of soap so those inclined to have a gun one way or another...if they are banned the only difference will be the price they pay for it.



I find that hard to believe ...I know the numbers are high but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of murders committed by gun in the united states are committed in the act of one crime or another .


edited to fix quote

From http://www.tsra.com/Lott6.htm

Why not? It's our freedom to own firearms, if you don't like them who said that you HAVE to? If you like them great, if you don't that's great too, but I myself own many firearms for collectible reasons and for self-defense, another thing that I don't get is liberals being so pro-choice but not agreeing with people have the right to own firearms legally.

P.S. I'm a left winger

Talen, you've brought up many points to contrast mine but I'm not sure where you are trying to go with it.

If you mean to just deflate all of my points and just want to argue, then let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.

I'm just trying to bring the discussion forward and it seems you're dodging my questions a little. I'm not accusing it of being intentional, I just feel that my point was missed.

Basically I was trying to say that if it's not the weapons that are a problem, then what is being done or not done to fascilitate these crimes?

If crime continues or rises and 90% of the murders in america for example, are with guns, then what is a solution other than banning weapons to lower that percentage?

The right to bear arms is the the only thing protecting us from the animals. The animals being the people who would do us harm. I'm not saying the guns themselves are doing the protecting, not at all. The law is what protects us.
If law abiding citizens could not legally own firearms, any criminal could walk up to any house, in any decent neighborhood, on any given night, and not think twice about kicking the door in. He sure wouldn't have to worry about any trouble from the people living there, and if he was just looking for quick cash or valuables ( which most home invaders are ) he knows he can be in and out before the police would respond to any calls or security systems.
I like the fact that the criminals DON'T know what to expect. I have a wife, one year old daughter and a Smith & Wesson .44 Special. I'm a very responsible gun owner, and I don't take the fact that there is a lethal weapon in my home lightly, but I feel good knowing two things.
I know it's there.
And other people, people who would possibly do harm to me or my family, don't know that it isn't.

My god am i happy tha ti live in Canada. i know many people with guns..hunting weapons that is. i dont see why everyone is making guns a big deal..its people pulling the trigger. why do you even ahve guns like that? i know that law enforcement has there own line of firearms but why does the common citizen need a colt magnumor whatever bloody hell there called. I understand the need t oprotect yourslef but shouldnt you focus on removing the criminals no there weapons. after all if guns are removed wouldnt criminals find better ways to make/hide/manufacture them?

<reads above post>
ack i jsut read it seems a little incoherent. the point i was trying to make was that i guess i have to live there to understand the mind set you are in. i dotn fear my neighbors nor ami particully afraid of break ins. my doors are locked, im a fast runner. thats good enough for me. neve rhad abreak in, no one i nmy family has.

I did answer your question....several times ....and I think you know the answer as well.

There is no solution. Human beings are the only living thing on this planet that will kill just for killings sake. We have been doomed as a race from the very begining. It doesn't matter if you take all the guns out of this world....then we will just kill eachother with knives. Take knives out of the world and we will kill eachother with stones.

Human beings are aggressive creatures that feel a need to dominate. We kill at will and for no reason. This hasn't changed since the begining of time nor will it change until the end of time. It's nice to think we could do something to change this ....but we can't ....History has proven that point all to well.

Ah! you forgot chimpanzees. theyre very cruel. soem wil kill there young for no reason.