Evolution vs Creationism video

[oDDity]

Which is probably why I never said that in the first place. The Bill of Rights has three categories of rights: legal rights (5th-9th), personal freedoms, protections and privacy (1st-4th), and finally, the protection of unenumerated rights (9th and 10th). The Third Amendment is largely archaic, but I don't see why this entails its removal. The funny thing about amendments (particularly the first 10) is that there really has to be an injustice caused by its enumeration to warrant its removal. There are of course exceptions, but for the most part, that is the case. How is the legal ownership of weapons for personal defense, sport, and militias an injustice?

One, you're arguing from the exception (converse fallacy of accident), and two, there isn't even a glimmer of a legitimate argument for the right to possess a weapon of mas destruction for anything outside of a militia (and that qualification itself is debatable). No functional weapon (distinguished from a tool that can be weaponized) with any sort of mass destructive effect is usable for personal defense, sport, or hunting, and any efforts of an individual to possess or acquire such a functional device for a collection is to be viewed with suspicion.

 

Ahh, so you think that it's a fair trade then - people can have a bit of harmless fun shooting animals (good use of guns) Vs sometimes they also use them to shoot other people (bad use of guns)

That's a good balance you think?

The problem with that argument, is that I don't trust anyone who enjoys shooting anything.

I'm of the opinion that we should have moved on a little from our caveman ancestors by now (and they didn't even kill animals for fun, but for survival), and if you're the sort of person who has the mentality to go out and shoot a deer in the haed for fun, and enjoy it, then the only thing stopping you from shooting people in the head at the slightest provocation is the law, and I don't trust anyone who's only reason for not doing something is because it's illegal.

Most of the 60-70 million gun owners in your fair land would no doubt still go out on nigger-hunts if it hadn't been made illegal.

Now, this personal defence argument. No one in the UK has a gun for personal defence, and the number of people (ordinary people, not gang members etc) murdered every year is microscopic, and of those, how many would have been saved if they'd had a gun? I mean, unless you carry it fully loaded on you at all times, and have good warning of any attack, it's not really much use for defence.

The rest of the world doesn't want the sort of vigilante culture (someone breaks in to steal your TV, you shoot them in the head, your neighbour makes a little bit too much noise one night, so you snap and shoot them in the head) that America enjoys.

[sparhawk]

I've always interpreted the second amendment as not about protection from individuals, but from the government, and complimentary with the notion that citizens have a right (and duty) to revolt against an oppressive one. Sure, guns may not keep the government from apprehending an individual, but whether or not a populace has widespread possession of guns could affect how easy or difficult it is for them to overthrow their own government.

 

That's a nice illusion. You can't throw off your goverment just because you happen to have a few guns. There are much more aspects to this, then just having a gun and waving around with it. In order to overthrow the goverment in a meaningfull way, you have to be quite organized and get widespread support in a possibly short time. If the public opinion is against you, you will have a hard time overthrowing an established goverment, no matter how bad it might be. Civil disobdience and passive resistance is much more effective, because the goverment doesn't live in a void. ANY goverment lives on teh support of it's people, and the more people dissagree, the more it relies on special forces that are loyal to it to suppress the resistance. But for this to work you also need to have a communication network, which can easily be disrupted by the goverment, unless you have supporters in the right places.

There is a reason why Bush put so much emphasis on controlling the mainstream media during the Iraq war, and the reason was NOT because he was afraid that some secret information might fall into the enemies hands. You can also look at how the Nazi regime controlled the public opinion, and compare it to other such regimes, like Chines today, or the communist countries when russia was stronger.

[Nyarlathotep]

Ahh, so you think that it's a fair trade then - people can have a bit of harmless fun shooting animals (good use of guns) Vs sometimes they also use them to shoot other people (bad use of guns)

That's a good balance you think?

The problem with that argument, is that I don't trust anyone who enjoys shooting anything.

I'm of the opinion that we should have moved on a little from our caveman ancestors by now (and they didn't even kill animals for fun, but for survival), and if you're the sort of person who has the mentality to go out and shoot a deer in the haed for fun, and enjoy it, then the only thing stopping you from shooting people in the head at the slightest provocation is the law, and I don't trust anyone who's only reason for not doing something is because it's illegal.

That's an appeal to fear. What makes you think that someone wanting to go hunting automatically means that they would just as easily kill a person?

 

Most of the 60-70 million gun owners in your fair land would no doubt still go out on nigger-hunts if it hadn't been made illegal.

And if they tried that shit in the ghetto, they'd be shot ten ways to hell. By no means is widespread gun-use a perfect solution to violent crime--but it actually is a solution, which is a lot more than can be said for most "solutions."

 

Now, this personal defence argument. No one in the UK has a gun for personal defence, and the number of people (ordinary people, not gang members etc) murdered every year is microscopic, and of those, how many would have been saved if they'd had a gun? I mean, unless you carry it fully loaded on you at all times, and have good warning of any attack, it's not really much use for defence.

I believe that for a person to be qualified to legally carry a weapon for self-defense, they should be fully trained in its use. Anything less is like expecting someone who has never driven before to be an expert defensive driver. A gun isn't going to help you if you're going to shoot yourself in the foot, and most people have neither the need nor the training to warrant the use of a weapon outside of home-defense.

 

I'd say more, but I can't be arsed to do it right now, especially as I'm investigating various displacement-mapping algorithms.

[oDDity]

That's an appeal to fear. What makes you think that someone wanting to go hunting automatically means that they would just as easily kill a person?

 

You have to have a certain level of psychopathic nature to enjoy shooting anything in the head.

So if you take 2 people, person A and B, person A regularly enjoys shooting various animals in the head, and person B quails at the thought of shooting anything, or even holding a gun, then it's quite obvious, without any psychological profiling, that person A would be more likely to shoot another person than person A.

Not only is it in them to start with, but they have become deadened to pulling a trigger and shooting mammals, and that's we are.

 

And if they tried that shit in the ghetto, they'd be shot ten ways to hell. By no means is widespread gun-use a perfect solution to violent crime--but it actually is a solution, which is a lot more than can be said for most "solutions."

That's a circular argument. You're saying people need guns, but only because there are already too many guns, so you need guns to protect yourself against guns.

If you're willing to admit that the situation is already so fucked up that it's going to be hard to change, then that's fine, but you seem to be saying that you don't even want a gun free situation, it's actually better to have the freedom to own guns.

[Nyarlathotep]

You have to have a certain level of psychopathic nature to enjoy shooting anything in the head.

So if you take 2 people, person A and B, person A regularly enjoys shooting various animals in the head, and person B quails at the thought of shooting anything, or even holding a gun, then it's quite obvious, without any psychological profiling, that person A would be more likely to shoot another person than person A.

Not only is it in them to start with, but they have become deadened to pulling a trigger and shooting mammals, and that's we are.

I'm questioning your leap in logic. You assume that the act of killing a person is psychologically very similar to the act of killing an animal, despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary (e.g., people in war finding it very hard to pull the trigger). Obviously, for a psychopath, this is pretty much exactly the case, but most people treat animals far differently than humans (in practice, that is). Furthermore, if most people have difficulty killing the animals they love--even when they aren't the ones doing it--what makes you think that it would be easier to kill a person?

 

That's a circular argument. You're saying people need guns, but only because there are already too many guns, so you need guns to protect yourself against guns.

If you're willing to admit that the situation is already so fucked up that it's going to be hard to change, then that's fine, but you seem to be saying that you don't even want a gun free situation, it's actually better to have the freedom to own guns.

I'm a pragmatist. It's better to be able to legally possess guns, where they can be controlled and regulated, than to ban them and make the gun situation even worse (removing the deterrent without actually countering the problem). Honestly, how hard is it for a determined criminal to acquire a gun in the UK? (That's not rhetorical; I'm actually curious.)

 

I tend to suspect that if we somehow able to eliminate guns, it would simply shift the balance of power guns afforded since the 18th century or so back to the strong rather than actually solve any problems. Furthermore, any real attempt to enforce a general ban on guns (one that would actually be effective against the black market) would require sacrifices to the rest of the Bill of Rights--something I'm not so willing to give up. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

[Domarius]

I have no scientific proof of this, but I firmly believe that anyone who can kill another living creature for fun, has to be somewhat more messed up than I am to some degree. It'll take a lot to sway this opinion, because I just can't fathom how anyone could do this for fun.

 

If I had to do it for food, then I'd do it with the grim realisation that it was nessecary, and yes I do consider a deer a lower form of life. Just as I consider it a higher form of life than a bug that I squash on my arm - because it's going to bite me, not for fun. But I consider a deer to be a much higher form of life than a bug, something much closer to humans on the scale, and so to actually kill this creature for pure entertainment seems no better to me than the days of the gladiators.

 

And hey - I admit it - I used to burn ants for fun, and toy with flies. But I was 8 years old.

[Domarius]

I tend to suspect that if we somehow able to eliminate guns, it would simply shift the balance of power guns afforded since the 18th century or so back to the strong rather than actually solve any problems.

I'm not sure. All of the biggest tragedies I've heard about in the US, are situations where the people killed didn't have a chance to defend themselves with a gun.

 

Besides, if you read back on the first page, you can see that both Spar and I said our countries have gun control and still have the hunting, without the school yard massacres every other month.

[sparhawk]

That's an appeal to fear. What makes you think that someone wanting to go hunting automatically means that they would just as easily kill a person?

 

I think that people, who are generally opposed to kill iving entites, have a much harder time killing fellow humans either, opposed to people who are already used to killing to some extent. Of course this doesn't include borderline cases, where poeple get into a situation that escalates unctronollable and the killing starts because of this.

 

And if they tried that shit in the ghetto, they'd be shot ten ways to hell. By no means is widespread gun-use a perfect solution to violent crime--but it actually is a solution, which is a lot more than can be said for most "solutions."

 

The silly notion that it acutally IS a solution is where the problem already starts. It amkes it easy to avoid having to go thorugh the tedious process of finding real solutions, because it's much easier to apply.

 

have neither the need nor the training to warrant the use of a weapon outside of home-defense.

 

Home-defense against what?

[sparhawk]

You assume that the act of killing a person is psychologically very similar to the act of killing an animal, despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary (e.g., people in war finding it very hard to pull the trigger).

 

Of course. But Oddity's argument is not that such people find it easy per se, only that they find it easier than people who are completely opposed to killing. In the second world war, the "Sonderkommandos" killed children and babies. They didn't start with this, though. In the beginning, I bet that there were only a minor minor minority who actually would have enjoyed it, because these were normal people. The first step was that they had to kill their enemies which were male soldiers. Since they had their orders and they were used to following order, there was a hurdle to overcome the repulsion of killing fellow humans, but because of the rationalizing it could be done. However the important aspect is, that the step from a normal citizen to killing other soldiers is MUCH smaller then the step from the normal citizen to killing children and babies. But once the step to killing other humans (because they were the enimie soldiers) was done, the next step to killing woman was also much smaller, and then the next step to kill their siblings was also smaller then the initial step. In fact it was rationalized among such members of that Sonderkommandos, that it would be a favour for the kids, because they couldn't survive without their moms (which they killed themselve). To kill the moms it was rationalized that they were equal capable of killing the soldiers, and as such they are to be considered as combatants. Incidiently a similar argument is applied by Bush to rationalize his war against terrorism.

 

Obviously, for a psychopath, this is pretty much exactly the case, but most people treat animals far differently than humans (in practice, that is).

 

To claim the save heaven of "only psychopaths would do this" is to deny the reality of war. Unless you are convinced that somehow all soldiers in armies are such psychopaths.

 

Furthermore, if most people have difficulty killing the animals they love--even when they aren't the ones doing it--what makes you think that it would be easier to kill a person?

 

Simply because for many people the act of killing is already a hurdle, independent of the target. As soon as people can identify with somethign as being sentient, they will develop some feelings towards it, because of empathy. So it follows logically, that people who already overcome the first hurdle, namely the actual acto of killing SOMETHING, are close to extend that behaviour, than people who are not thus initiated.

 

It's better to be able to legally possess guns, where they can be controlled and regulated, than to ban them and make the gun situation even worse (removing the deterrent without actually countering the problem). Honestly, how hard is it for a determined criminal to acquire a gun in the UK? (That's not rhetorical; I'm actually curious.)

 

Can't say for UK, but in Germany, of course it is not THAT hard. If you are determined to acquire a gun, you probably can get it. The major point is though, that there is no big incentive get one in the first place, even if you are a criminal.

 

Furthermore, any real attempt to enforce a general ban on guns (one that would actually be effective against the black market) would require sacrifices to the rest of the Bill of Rights--something I'm not so willing to give up. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

 

That "black market" argument is always used as an execuse, but that doesn't make it true. In Austria were shotguns banned around 1995 (maybe). At this time there were a lot of people owning shotguns. When they were banned, there was a period where you could return the guns to the police, even AFTER they were banned without fearing any repercussions. Of course the same argumetn could have applied here as well. If shotguns were banned, that would only mean that people now will own them illegaly, and the black market will become stronger. It didn't happen, because that "black market" is only a minority. I think this can not be extrapolated to the USA though, because there the general view on guns is different. So the first thing that must happen is, that the public opinion about guns in general must be changed. As long as people believe that crap "freedom" argument and that freedom is mysteriously related to guns nothing will change. As long as people believe in that equally absurd "guns provide protection" argument, it's the same. People must see guns for what the are. Devices for killing and violence. They are not "peacemakers", or only in a cynical way, but as long as this twisted perception doesn't change, your gun situation will also not change.

[oDDity]

Well I think it's become clear that Nyarlathotep is a true blue, Bush-voting all-american lad, obsessed with this vision they're brainwashed with as infants called The American Way (he's even started quoting Benjamin Franklin) and will cling on to that piece of paper that says he can own a gun until his dying day, no matter how much gun violence occurs (in fact more gun violence will only convince him even more that people need guns for defence) and any argument he makes is made from that position of totally brainwashed intransigence.

Exactly he type of American that gives the country its bad name in the rest of the world..

[Crispy]

Home-defense against what?

All the maniacs running around with guns because of the lack of proper gun control, apparently.

[oDDity]

Yes, but as Nyarlathotep would say, what's the point in having freedom at all if you haven't also got the freedom to be gunned down in your classroom by some maniac wielding an arsenal of automatic weapons.

Any common sense step towards safety or security is automatically a step towards fascism.

[rich_is_bored]

I wonder how many of you have ever fired, or even less seen a gun firsthand? I have. And while it's nothing to brag about it's probably an experience that most of you will never have.

 

But I can appreciate the strict gun laws in Europe. It's an effective solution to the problem of gun violence. And contrary to what you might think, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of a gun ban here in the US but none the less I am opposed to it and I'll explain why.

 

I don't believe by banning guns, you solve the problem.

 

Take for instance the recent shootings at VT. Yes, if a gun ban was in place the likelihood of something of that nature happening would probably go down. However, the bullets didn't fire themselves.

 

My point being that a person did this. Guns were just his weapon of choice. He could have easily done the same if not worse with a homemade bomb. And given the choice I'd rather see crazy people resort to guns than blowing things up.

 

And in that the truth is by banning guns, gun violence decreases, but not violence in general. So while we can sit here and talk about reducing the number of gun related deaths and use extreme cases like gun wielding maniacs as poster boys it doesn't change the fact that there are people willing to kill and that guns are just a medium for them to act it out.

 

I recall hearing a story about how a fella in New York was shot and killed over his sneakers. Outrageous isn't it? To equate a person's life with a pair of Nike's.

 

But if they didn't have access to guns would that have changed the outcome? Would the thieves resorted to other weapons? Perhaps they would have stabbed him to death instead? Again there is the possibility that they might have beat him unconscious with a rock. But who's the authority on the subject right?

 

See you have to acknowledge that with each act of violence there is some form of catalyst. People don't generally do things like murder other people without some motive for doing so. So while we can abolish guns we're not really addressing the issues that drive people to commit these horrible acts in the first place.

 

What exactly should we do? I can't really say. But I'm sure there are actions we can take to better prevent violent crime without resorting to banning firearms. For all the nut jobs out there I'm sure there are hundreds of others who are perfectly capable of being responsible.

 

As far as hunting is concerned. I'm not an advocate but I'm not one to encroach on someone's lifestyle. I mean, I can't speak for them but I do know that it is common practice to eat what you kill. Perhaps that isn't applicable 100% across the board but most things rarely are.

 

Besides, it's kind of hard to stick up for animals in one specific instance while you exploit them in every other sense. I'm sure there are products you use everyday that are only possible through the death or exploitation of some animal. Has anyone else here seen what they do to cattle in slaughter houses? Just because we eat the beef doesn't make the act any less cruel.

[sparhawk]

I wonder how many of you have ever fired, or even less seen a gun firsthand? I have. And while it's nothing to brag about it's probably an experience that most of you will never have.

 

No we are all backward country bums, who never have seen such a mythical thing. In fact I was once even "threatened" by somebody with a gun, but I sure don't know if it was a joke or not. I assumed it was a joke and ignored him and nothing happened, but this was not because I'm such a tough guy, it was more, because I was so surprised about this, that I didn't really know what to do.

 

My point being that a person did this. Guns were just his weapon of choice. He could have easily done the same if not worse with a homemade bomb. And given the choice I'd rather see crazy people resort to guns than blowing things up.

 

First of all, building a working bomb requiores more skills than acquiring a gun. So even though a bomb might be more dangerous, it's also harder to obtain. And second, I'm suer that with a bomb threat the actual damage would even be smaller, because either the attacker would have to place it before the even, which requires more preparation, or he has to walk around with it himself, and in this case he can only fire one bomb. At least there is a limit on how many bombs somebody can use in such a case.

 

And in that the truth is by banning guns, gun violence decreases, but not violence in general.

 

Well, you have to start somewhere. You can't keep acting stupid on the basis that if you would stop this particular behaviour, not every stupidity in the world would be ended, and thus you don't need to stop your particular stupidity as well.

 

So while we can sit here and talk about reducing the number of gun related deaths and use extreme cases like gun wielding maniacs as poster boys it doesn't change the fact that there are people willing to kill and that guns are just a medium for them to act it out.

 

And you believe that the same is not true for middle european countries as well?

 

But if they didn't have access to guns would that have changed the outcome? Would the thieves resorted to other weapons? Perhaps they would have stabbed him to death instead? Again there is the possibility that they might have beat him unconscious with a rock. But who's the authority on the subject right?

 

The chances to defend against somebody who only uses his fists or maybe a knife, are definitely better than against a gun. And also, see above. Just because you can't stop everything in one blow is no good excuse to not begin at all.

 

See you have to acknowledge that with each act of violence there is some form of catalyst. People don't generally do things like murder other people without some motive for doing so. So while we can abolish guns we're not really addressing the issues that drive people to commit these horrible acts in the first place.

 

That's precisly why I said above that not only guns have to be banned, but also the public opinion about guns and gun possession must be changed.

 

As far as hunting is concerned. I'm not an advocate but I'm not one to encroach on someone's lifestyle. I mean, I can't speak for them but I do know that it is common practice to eat what you kill. Perhaps that isn't applicable 100% across the board but most things rarely are.

 

Most hunters that I know (and that are not many ) eat what they shot, so that's ok for me. Actually I don't know any hunter who enjoys killing just for the act of it, and in fact, if a hunter would act like this, he would get into troubles here with the authorities.

[Domarius]

I wonder how many of you have ever fired, or even less seen a gun firsthand? I have. And while it's nothing to brag about it's probably an experience that most of you will never have.

I'm green with envy. Look, look at all the envy coming out of me. Look at it. There's so much. Really.

 

All we have to do is go to a shooting range, it's not hard. Plus one of my brother's has professional stunt training and part of that is firearm training and he can fire several types of weapons. He went clay pidgeon shooting with my dad, and 'pwned his ass' even though dad has grown up with many years of actual duck hunting.

 

It was actually pretty cool, none of us knew just how much he could operate these weapons let alone how good he was at shooting. This is how it happened -

Instructor: So, the saftey is here, you reload here, and...

My brother: Yeah yeah *chack-chack* Pull!! *bang - shatter!!!*

 

 

I don't believe by banning guns, you solve the problem.

Let's put it this way - wearing your seatbelt doesn't stop car crashes, but it still drasticly changes everyone's likelyhood of surviving and the number of people that survive.

 

If these are the only kinds of arguments you can come up with in support of machines that are designed to take life on a wholesale level, I'm starting to believe oDDity's notion about the severe level of brainwashing going on over there...

[sparhawk]

It was actually pretty cool, none of us knew just how much he could operate these weapons let alone how good he was at shooting.

 

When I was the first time in the yard shooting these clay discs, I expected to hit none or maybe one by accident. I was quite surprised that I managed to hit seven out of ten, which gave me the impression that shooting is not really THAT hard to do anyway. Don't know what the average is with beginners, maybe 7/10 is in the usual range, in which case I would think that hitting the target with a gun is rather easy.

I did much worse with long range shooting (across 300-400 meters), because I usually had problems making out the target, but on the closer range when we trained in the army, I was also doing not so bad. Not particular good, but not particular bad either.

[Domarius]

Sorry, I missed this - I did get turned off your post once I saw it was heading down the "Guns don't kill - people do!" path.

Besides, it's kind of hard to stick up for animals in one specific instance while you exploit them in every other sense. I'm sure there are products you use everyday that are only possible through the death or exploitation of some animal. Has anyone else here seen what they do to cattle in slaughter houses? Just because we eat the beef doesn't make the act any less cruel.

Well, from all accounts I've been given, the people who work in the field of killing animals day after day are not the sort you'd want to meet in a dark alley.

 

I'm not sticking up for animals (I'm not a vegetarian), I'm talking about what it takes to take another creature's life. There's a varying degree of desensitisation going on there. I totally admit - I would much rather go to the shop than kill the animal myself, given the choice.

[oDDity]

I wonder how many of you have ever fired, or even less seen a gun firsthand? I have. And while it's nothing to brag about it's probably an experience that most of you will never have.

 

 

I can appreciate that for little weakling nerds and girls, owning a gun makes them feel big.

Not a concern for me.

 

 

 

Take for instance the recent shootings at VT. Yes, if a gun ban was in place the likelihood of something of that nature happening would probably go down. However, the bullets didn't fire themselves.

No, they didn't, but the automatic pistols made a hell of a lot of them fire in a short space of time, and each one capable of killing.

 

My point being that a person did this. Guns were just his weapon of choice. He could have easily done the same if not worse with a homemade bomb. And given the choice I'd rather see crazy people resort to guns than blowing things up.

 

There are good reasons why no individual outside terrorist groups use bombs as a method of killing. It's not easy, and what your average nutcase wants is the easy route.

Failing that, they'd just stab someone, or inadequately set fire to something, or more likely just kill themselves.

See you have to acknowledge that with each act of violence there is some form of catalyst. People don't generally do things like murder other people without some motive for doing so. So while we can abolish guns we're not really addressing the issues that drive people to commit these horrible acts in the first place.

 

I suggest that rather than trying to change human nature and the brain of every individual on the planet who might potentially kill someone, we simply make dangerous weapons, with which you can kill a lot of people very quickly, very hard to get hold of for the average person.

Of course you can never stop organised and hardened criminals and terrorists getting weapons, they have the resources to make their own, but every small step helps, and just because you can't completely stop murder happening, doesn't mean you shouldn't put at end to incidents such as school massacres with handguns.

That is a small target, and very achievable. Your target is not.

[rich_is_bored]

First of all, building a working bomb requiores more skills than acquiring a gun.

 

Does it? I'd think that Google and a trip to the supermarket would be enough.

 

... I'm suer that with a bomb threat the actual damage would even be smaller, because either the attacker would have to place it before the even, which requires more preparation, or he has to walk around with it himself, and in this case he can only fire one bomb. At least there is a limit on how many bombs somebody can use in such a case.

 

What better place than a school where you can count on people gathering in large concentrations at specific times? Who cares if you can only use at the very least one bomb. If you do it right you can take out everyone in the room.

 

Forget the fact that VT was a college where class sizes are generally larger. You could take out at least 30 people in the average high school class. That's almost the same number of people this guy Cho fella killed with all his guns and with a bomb there would have been no chance for police to respond.

 

Well, you have to start somewhere.

 

Exactly what I was thinking. Only I don't believe we should be starting with weapons bans. There are other things we could address that may have the same impact at reducing violent crime. Poverty for one but I'm sure I could come up with others.

 

I fail to see how allowing people to have guns is stupidity exemplified. It's a question of responsibility. You can't allow the actions of a few dumbasses to dictate what you allow or disallow when plenty of other people demonstrate otherwise.

 

Say we did ban guns and it had a positive impact. By banning guns you are saying that people cannot be trusted with them because they have the capacity to kill. What action can you possibly take from that point to further curb violence without redrawing that line? Knives? Perhaps then clubs? Where does it stop?

 

I mean it sounds great except they already screen for this sort of thing at the airport now. Did you know finger nail clippers are one of the things they confiscate? It's laughable.

 

The chances to defend against somebody who only uses his fists or maybe a knife, are definitely better than against a gun.

 

True. I'll give you that.

[Domarius]

As for the the VT shooter's "motive" was that he was mentaly broken. If his creative writing is anything to go off, he was sexually and physically abused as a child by his father, carefully crafted into a sick and demented human being over many years. At the time of the killing, his motives were something along the lines of "you rich kids make me sick, you made me do this", something that made little sense to anyone except him.

 

Now, we could untangle that complicated web, but in the mean time - we could just take the gun off him. Much simpler and more effective overall. You don't have to take my word for it - you can just compare the shootings in the US with that of other countries with good gun control.

[rich_is_bored]

... That is a small target, and very achievable. Your target is not.

 

So it's better to settle for the easy way out and follow suit?

 

Heh. Watch this topic come full circle.

 

Isn't evolution about trying new things? Isn't that how things advance?

[Domarius]

Does it? I'd think that Google and a trip to the supermarket would be enough.

What better place than a school where you can count on people gathering in large concentrations at specific times? Who cares if you can only use at the very least one bomb. If you do it right you can take out everyone in the room.

But he didn't have to go to the trouble - it was much easier to get a gun.

 

Exactly what I was thinking. Only I don't believe we should be starting with weapons bans. There are other things we could address that may have the same impact at reducing violent crime.

Okay - shoot

Poverty for one but I'm sure I could come up with others.

God damn, you blew me away with your convincing argument there. Something tells me that poverty is harder to control than gun control - simply because other countrys have good gun control but still have poverty. Any other ideas?

 

I fail to see how allowing people to have guns is stupidity exemplified. It's a question of responsibility. You can't allow the actions of a few dumbasses to dictate what you allow or disallow when plenty of other people demonstrate otherwise.

See my sentance about seatbelts.

 

Say we did ban guns and it had a positive impact. By banning guns you are saying that people cannot be trusted with them because they have the capacity to kill. What action can you possibly take from that point to further curb violence without redrawing that line? Knives? Perhaps then clubs? Where does it stop?

It stops with guns. Boy, you really are living in a black hole there - HELLOO - Australia, Germany, countries we said multiple times have gun control and don't have the USs level of shooting tragedies.

 

I mean it sounds great except they already screen for this sort of thing at the airport now. Did you know finger nail clippers are one of the things they confiscate? It's laughable.

No it's not. You can still stab someone with any sharp metal object, and we can't have people doing that sort of thing thousands of feet up in the sky, where a whole bunch of other people's lives are at risk. Your lack of appreciation of this is what's laughable.

[oDDity]

You have to go for realistic targets, not fantasy ones. Maybe someday controlling natural aggression in the entire human population will be achieved, but currently it's impossible.

Making handguns hard to get hold of is quite easy, if your government tries (and your fellow citizens aren't all obsessed gun wielding maniacs)

As for google made bombs, you're living in a fanasty land.

You asked a question about guns and how many of us had seen one, well let me ask you how many bombs you've seen exploding?

I've been in the vicinity of 3, plus a car bomb which was planted not 20 yards from my house, but didn't go off.

If a well organised group like the IRA found it difficult and messed it up half the time, (a good 50% of bombing attempts failed in some way, including kiliing the bomb maker) what chance does some nutcase student have of successfully planing an executing a bomb attack on a school?

[Domarius]

So it's better to settle for the easy way out and follow suit?

...yes. What are you suggesting? It's better to do it the hard way just to be different?

[oDDity]

Interesting that the only two people who are rabidly arguing in favour of everyone owning a gun are both American Citizens®, and therefore were both presumably dragged up in the same brainwashed way.